So besides the ability to utilize more RAM, are there other benefits to Vista x64 today?

Assuming that it's a 64bit Vista, most of the applications (office etc.) are still 32bit, so will I actually see any difference between 32 and 64 on the same machine?

The reason I'm asking is that I'm getting a new laptop (Dell) which I could only get with 32bit Vista and I'm thinking of upgrading it.

Thanks.

What I can think of off the top of my head is with 64-bit you'll be ready for when everything is converted to 64 bit and you'll already be ready to enjoy everything 64 bit has to offer rather than scramble to get a fix like everyone else.

But this is at least a year ahead, and I'm not sure that 64bit will become mainstream before the next version of windows. According to what you say, there is no real reason to upgrade to 64bit except for the fun of it.

Speed. You'll get more speed, even with 32 bit apps, but there're problems, like drivers, some incompatibility with apps and utilities. MS said that Vista is the last 32 bit OS. Actually, 64 bit OS is a big waste of power, without 64 bit apps. Duo Processors are fast not only be Duo, but because they are a 64 bit platform.
Of course, English isn't my native idiom.

64 bit is the future

No. 32 bit apps don't benefit from the extra CPU registers or anything, so no speed gains. In fact, there's extra overhead associated with running under WOW64 (marshalling/thunking the 32 bit data back and forth).

The only real benefits you get, are when you're running native x64 apps (some extra speed mainly due to the extra CPU registers, at the expense of ~15% higher memory usage).


Yes. There's many things keeping a lot of folks on the plain old x86 version but it's getting better. Unless one has particular apps not working on the x64 version or missing drivers, there's no real reason not to move to x64. And x64 is your only option if you want to use more than 4GB of RAM.

"You'll get more speed, even with 32 bit apps"

I mean because you're running on a 64 bit platform, faster than a 32 bit platform.

What do you mean, other than being able to use more RAM?

That is the biggest issue. A very big one. The biggest one people are running into every single day. And the problem will only become more of an issue as time goes on.

Video cards have hundreds of megs of RAM. Some are coming out with a Gig of RAM, and you can use multiple ones of those.

Many systems in use have 4 or 8 Gigs of RAM. Some are even using more.

Games have already came out that recommend having at least 2 Gigs RAM.

Using anything 32-bit will limit you severely. You could have 8 Gigs installed in your system and be able to use less than half of it if you stick with 32-bit.


Other features of 64-bit Windows (from Microsoft) are mainly security-related

* 32-bit uses some software DEP, 64-bit uses full hardware DEP (Data Execution Prevention). This prevents some buffer overflow exploits.

* 64-bit features "Kernel Patch Protection", which prevents bad programs from patching any part of the kernel to take over functions. 32-bit has nothing like this.

* 64-bit requires Signed drivers unless you boot in a special F8 developer mode on every boot. For many users this may prevent crap drivers or rootkits from being installed.


And of course, many native 64-bit applications may run faster. Memory intensive programs will be able to work with bigger chunks of RAM and do what they do quicker. Something like Zipping/Unzipping, installing programs, decompressing game data (and level loads) will all be faster with 64-bit applications.

So, there you go. That's the difference.

More RAM, more speed, more security. That's Vista 64-bit.

And the trade off?

A few applications may not work. So far, only Cisco VPN has been something that bothered me, and I doubt most people would need that. There is a work around. I run XP in a VM, and use CiscoVPN in that, and then route local traffic through the VM.

The WOW64 mechnism is very light and doesn't impact performance.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Windows_XP_editions


The current slide in RAM prices has caused 8GB of RAM today to cost what 2GB cost a year ago.

http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.aspx...N82E16820146731

I went with two packs of these in my new gaming rig. Vista x64 sees it, and Superfetch has often found enough stuff to cache to fill it. FILL 8GB.

The other thing here is future-proofing. Not only because x64 is cool now, but because a year from now when a user wants to put in more RAM, they won't be looking at an OS reinstall and re-doing the machine.

Besides, it won't be long before they'll be selling desktop boards that can support 16GB.

http://www.intel.com/products/desktop/moth...SG-overview.htm



...see? TECHNOLOGY IS FAST.

Not true. It doesn't affect it as much as emulating or such would, but there definitely is a performance hit (I never said it was big, but 32 bit apps certainly don't run "faster" like someone else put it). Every single API call and such goes thru an extra layer (wow64.dll) where thunking happens, plus more fun stuff to adjust for pointer sizes and such (using wow64win.dll). All this stuff adds overhead.

Don't get me wrong, I'm all for x64. I'll be making the switch in a few months (with the next RAM upgrade to 6 or 8GB, and I'll be getting rid of my hardware that lacks 64 bit drivers at the same time).

As I already showed you, Wikipedia says differently. Microsoft also says differently.

http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa384219(VS.85).aspx



WOW64 on the x64 architecture is not some hack made to get it to work via some emulated environment. When a 32-bit app is ran, Windows simply tell the CPU "This needs to run 32-bit, take care of that" and the CPU handles it. Being little more than an x86 processor with a 64-bit system grafted onto it, the CPU can do this natively without any fancy tricks.

Wikipedia says so, so it must be true!
Or again, perhaps they just meat it has no performance loss by doing this, versus an typical emulated environment...


Did you actually read it? Because it acknowledges some of my points i.e. "API thunk overhead". They say the performance hit is small, but it is definitely there.


Yes, the instructions are ran natively, no one ever said otherwise (it's not emulated). No performance loss there. But the thunking/marshalling overhead remains (some apps are affected more than others). I never said the overhead is super heavy, but it's there nonetheless, and 32 bit apps surely won't run faster like someone said before, that's all.

OK, I said 32 run faster because I have 2 computers running same app, VirtualDub, and the same movie, avi. One of them a P4 x86 2.8Ghz and the other an AMD x64 2800+ (1600Ghz) on the same case, I just replaced the MB. Memory, HDs, etc., are the same. P4 spent 45min.;
AMD 30min. BTW, both running XP x86.
It's a empiric test, but...
I told about PLATFORM, not OS. Later, I run again the same app, on AMD x64. First with XP x86 and then with XP x64, no change noted, the same time
CRAHAK you're right about OS, there's no gain, but with platforms there's a real gain.

But not everyone has 4GB or more. If you have less than 4GB, then the biggest benefit of 64-bit goes straight out the window.


No not really: http://support.microsoft.com/kb/912923

Not really?

My Microsoft link, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765
says this: (direct copy and paste)

"32-bit versions of Windows Vista use a software-based version of DEP."
"64-bit versions of Windows Vista support hardware-backed DEP. "


I think my Microsoft link and your Microsoft link should get in a fight to see who wins.

I just reread my link and now Im confused.

Windows XP/2003 (32-bit) can use hardware DEP but Vista (32-bit) cannot? WTF.

Vista 64 is MUCH faster than Vista 32. I used both systems and HATED Vista till i got 6GB RAM and installed the 64-bit version. Even with only 2GB, the x64 version still feels faster.

On the other hand, there are a few annoying compatibility issues. But if you aren't playing older games and have all cards supported under x64, go for it. For example my TV-Tuner does not work under x64, but it's no big deal, i didn't watch TV anyway.

I was kinda the opposite with regards to TV.

I always watch TV on my computer. It's been my primary TV for 12 years now.

Having a TV card that worked great under Vista (and Vista x64) was a must.

I'm using a KWorld HD 120 PCI something or other. HDTV is awesome with it. The program "Easy HDTV" is the best HDTV viewer I've ever used (and more than worth the $20 it costs). They all work together great in Vista 32-bit or 64-bit.

Newegg has several TV cards from just $19.99 and up that should have WHQL Vista 64-bit drivers.

My 1996 STB TV PCI has some home-made 64-bit drivers, but after the August 2007 update, you have to boot in the special F8 mode since they aren't signed.
They may not all be signed drivers, but most TV cards can be made to work in Vista x64 using 3rd party drivers.

Thanks for all the input. I'm getting a 4GB laptop with t9300, and I'm going 64...

4GB seems to be the magic number. However, some IT people I know said that there is no use for 64bit if I have less than 8GB. Is that right?

No.

32-bit applications are limited to just 2 Gigs RAM.

Like, when testing my system with 4 gigs, I'd have to load two copies of the 32-bit Prime95 to check the memory, as each 32-bit has a 2 gig limit.

Or, I can just load up 1 copy of the 64-bit version, and it will test it all.

Even a system with 3 Gigs RAM can take advantage of 64-bit Windows.

You're going to be hitting ceilings with 32-bit software at 2, 3, 3.5, 4 gigs, etc. If you're running 4 Gigs or more (ie, LESS THAN 8), 64-bit is a must.

Applications don't know anything about RAM, only virtual address space. They're limited to 4GB of VA, of which 1 or 2GB (depending on if /3GB is used in boot.ini) is used by the kernel, and 2 or 3GB is available to the application. The NT memory manager determines whether those VA pages are mapped into physical RAM or into the pagefile.

I will agree, however, that systems with 2 or 3GB of RAM can still benefit from 64bit Windows, especially when running native 64bit apps (being able to access 64 registers on the CPU instead of 32 can bring great speed increases). I would suggest anyone with 2 or more GB of RAM to consider x64 before making a final decision - if all of your apps will work (or can be made to work), choosing x64 over x86 makes sense. If you have any app compat issues, of course, x86 is still a safe bet.

I just switched to 64-bit in my latest clean installation...with a 2.4GHz Core 2 Quad and 3 GB of RAM, I have noticed no significant performance increases or decreases, and only one minor program didn't work. My system is about one year old, and all major components had 64-bit drivers available - amazingly even my four-year-old Lexmark x5250 all-in-one had a full-featured driver available.

As for major applications, Office 2003, Acrobat 8 Pro, Nero 7 run fine under 64-bit even though none of them were designed with Vista x64 in mind. My only software conflict came with Webroot Window Washer, which Webroot's own site acknowledges is not compatible with 64-bit. Oh well, gave me an excuse to finally move to CCleaner.

If I were building a new system now, even if I wasn't planning on putting in 4GB+ of RAM right away, I'd go ahead and install Vista 64-bit, because as the other posters have acknowledged, with the price of RAM falling rapidly, it won't be long before you're running with 16 GB.

Since Vista is running faster on 64 bits, I imagine it leaves more resources for all apps, 32 bits included.
32 bits apps may not profit from the 64 bits architecture, but they will have more resources like processing power and memory to run.
Am I right?

No, they're still in an emulated 32bit environment. They still have 4GB virtual address space, of which 2GB is available to the app. And they still have access to the same 32 registers that they would on a 32bit box (although wow64 can dynamically assign these to memory above 4GB or to registers not native to 32bit, it's not something the 32bit app can take advantage of - this is done by wow64 purely as a load-balancing feature so as to run *it's* 64bit environment efficiently.

You didn't understand my question:
If Vista64 run faster on 64 bits processor, it uses the processor less often, less intensively, less hindering other apps.

No. x64 will use more RAM if you have it (and the binaries are larger and processes use more space on load, so it will use more memory by default), but having 2 - 4GB of RAM doesn't preclude you from using and benefitting from x64. Ask for an explanation, or if they're just regurgitating something they heard somewhere .

I ran 32 bit Vista Ultimate with 4 gB of RAM - then switched to 64 bit Vista Ultimate with 4 gB of RAM. It wasn't any faster, and may have been a tad bit slower. Then I found this article: http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/vista-workshop,1775.html

Upgraded to 8 gB of RAM - and it's fantastic. Not significantly faster, but I can leave everything open and still play games without any lag!

OEM's have started to push 64 bit Vista systems over the last month or two. And the rumors about Windows 7 seem to indicate that 64 bit will be the preferred flavor (although 32 bit will be available).

So what worthwhile benefits does x64 have for those with less than 4gb memory?

Well, a larger kernel memory space, larger process VA space (for native x64 apps), access to 32 additional CPU registers (for native x64 apps, including the OS itself - 32bit apps are limited to the lower 32 registers on the CPU, x64 apps can access all 64), and it's more future-proof (not sure if Win7 will have an x86 flavor or not - current projections are that it actually may not). You also get patchguard, signed driver requirements, and larger RAM headroom if at some point you do want to add more than 4GB (if you do want to upgrade in the future, you cannot upgrade from x86 to x64 - you'd need a clean install). Remember, though, driver support means you need to make sure you have x64 drivers for your hardware before jumping, not to mention you would need x64 versions of any antivirus or firewall product you might use (you can't load 32bit filter drivers in an x64 OS) - I've not found this to be a problem with mainstream apps in this category, but your mileage may vary.

32bit apps will likely not be faster under x64, and you should always check app compat before jumping - however, if you do have 32bit apps that will run, a good video card and CPU, and you can find x64 versions of apps you use if possible, you will find x64 to be just as good, if not better, than x86.

This isn't exactly true in all situations. 32-bit applications that are LAA (large address aware) can address up to 4GB of memory on Windows x64.

I use 32-bit, all of the apps I use are 32-bit and very few have 64-bit versions (well, the only one I can think of that has 64-bit is 7zip--lol) so I don't really see the point. Plus my laptop has 2GB, that's the max and 64MB is for video memory, and apparently I'm not supposed to be running 64-bit with less than 4GB...

True, but there aren't many. Most apps compiled this way are server-type apps (like SQL Server or Exchange, for instance). I was trying to keep it simple .

A lot of CAD applications are written that way. AutoCAD, Revit, 3DSMax, etc, etc. I deal with all of those on a regular basis

True, AutoCAD was one I remember. Even if you don't have AutoCAD x64, you could still run older versions that are compiled LAA under x64 WOW and get 4GB VA - I know I would .