Vista: 32-bit vs 64-bit

[Stridder44]

I want so badly for 64-bit to be the way to go, but I'm unsure still as I've heard very mixed reviews. So I want your opinion on which one to go with for gaming, general use, etc. What do you recommend from personal use: Vista (Ultimate) 32-bit or 64-bit?

EDIT: I also found this little benchmark article comparing the two (done April 2nd, so SP1 is included obviously).

(I searched for other threads but non seemed to really answer this question).

 

[MacsRgr8]

I have done it differently...

I have partitioned my Windows HD (got one 320 GB HD dedicated to Windows) in two pieces:
1) for Windows XP Pro SP 2 32 bits
2) for Windows Vista Ultimate SP 2 64 bits

Why?
Because all "older" (2005 and earlier) games gave me one issue or another in Vista, so I decided to grab my dusted XP SP2 CD and install it for "ol' time's sake"

Vista. Yeah... you can get a 32 bits version.. but why? If your Mac is capable of running a 64 bits OS, and you will upgrade your memory to > 4 GB in the future, why invest in 32 bits?
Vista Ultimate 64 bits runs 32 bits apps very well, as your own link underlines. And once more apps become 64 bits, you'll be glad you got the required OS.

 

[Nugget]

I went with the 64 bit flavor on my Mac Pro (since I have more than 4GB of RAM) and it hasn't really posed any problems. The few games I've installed have all worked well enough. I say go for the 64 bit version.

 

[Quillz]

I recommend 64-bit editions of operating systems, even though I'm currently running 32-bit Vista Ultimate on VMware Fusion. I do plan to set up a new 64-bit virtual machine for testing, though.

 

[steveza]

If you are talking about the MBP in your sig then the fact that you have 2GB RAM makes the difference zero IMO. If you are planning on installing 4GB then get the 64 bit.

 

[Stridder44]

If you are talking about the MBP in your sig then the fact that you have 2GB RAM makes the difference zero IMO. If you are planning on installing 4GB then get the 64 bit.

And I am, seeing as RAM (ddr2 anyway) is dirt cheap now. I found another interesting discussion here: http://forums.anandtech.com/messageview.aspx?catid=31&threadid=2144497&FTVAR_STKEYWORDFRM=&STARTPAGE=1&FTVAR_FORUMVIEWTMP=Linear

After dozens of different configurations, games, and tests, this pretty much sums it up right here:

FPS whores will probably want Vista 32 ... there are only 2 games i tested that run faster in Vista 64 and they are FarCry and Hellgate: London ... and IF you play those 2 games a lot, you WILL want Vista 64 ... there is significant improvement over Vista 32 in every way.

IF you have 4+GB of RAM there are also some possible advantages. Huge advantages with 64-bit games but only "possible" minor advantages in "loading/saving", in memory-mismanaged games and also if you are an 'extreme multi-tasker'. None of my "stopwatch" tests were conclusive; since i have an average "cluttered" system with everything enabled [including ReadyBoost and System Restore] sometimes Vista 64 would be quicker and sometimes Vista 32. Even the Witcher showed no consistent differences....

So my own personal "D-day" has arrived ... it is Day 30 of my "trial" ... and MS is giving me the ULTIMATUM - activate or lose it ...
--that's easy, imo - for personal use - i'd rather have the very slight FPS increase and Vista32.
[i am done with FC and Hg:L]

But i DO see where some of you prefer the perceived slightly smoother experience in *some* memory mismanaged games and those who are also extreme maxi-multitasker; not needed for me.

As i UNINSTALL Vista 64, i have to say it is "THE FUTURE" . It is just as stable as Vista 32 and you have to 'nitpick' to find flaws as you trade the irritation of 'signed drivers' for slightly better security.
---So ... pick one ... don't feel bad picking either choice as it is not a "marriage". If you want you can be polygamous ... tri- or even quad-boot your OSes if it makes you feel especially "high end"

... so, if there is interest, i can format my results ... but one fact is pretty clear to me at least ... pick Vista ... forget XP

On that note, I quickly remembered that I don't think my Leopard DVD comes with 64-bit boot camp drivers anyway.

So 32-bit it is (for now anyway)!

 

[Stridder44]

So, just want to update my statement. Apparently the 64-bit drivers that come on the MP install disc work with MBP's as well. So x64 it is!

 

[Siron]

I have a related question. I have XP Pro on a second disk that runs under BC and Parallels. I have ordered another disk that will go in Bay 3 with Vista 64 on it. Can Parallels be configured to run both OS (with an option at start up)?
Alan

 

[The Flashing Fi]

You can install Vista 32-bit now and install Vista 64-bit later when you're ready to move. The license is good for either 32 or 64-bit.

 

[Zwhaler]

(I searched for other threads but non seemed to really answer this question).

Here's a thread I started more than a year ago about which version of Vista is better for gaming. It got 34 responses, so try lookin through the posts and see if anything helps.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/287641/

 

[Nugget]

I have a related question. I have XP Pro on a second disk that runs under BC and Parallels. I have ordered another disk that will go in Bay 3 with Vista 64 on it. Can Parallels be configured to run both OS (with an option at start up)?
Alan

I don't know about Parallels, but VMware fusion is unable to boot a 64-bit Boot Camp partition up in a virtual machine. That feature is limited to 32 bit Boot Camp partitions.

 

[Stridder44]

Here's a thread I started more than a year ago about which version of Vista is better for gaming. It got 34 responses, so try lookin through the posts and see if anything helps.

https://forums.macrumors.com/threads/287641/

Yeah, nothing helped there.

 

[kinless]

I don't know about Parallels, but VMware fusion is unable to boot a 64-bit Boot Camp partition up in a virtual machine. That feature is limited to 32 bit Boot Camp partitions.

Actually that's not entirely accurate. I have Fusion running my 64-bit Vista boot camp partition. It's a bug in Fusion where it doesn't properly detect that it's 64-bit. If you go into the proper VMX file, you can change the guest property of "winvista" to "winvista-64" and then you won't get that error message. Works great on my Mac Pro.

 

[rasmasyean]

Go 64-bit

You want it to last so get 64-bit Vista Home Premium or Ultimate. It’s mega-fast with 64-bit apps as well as lets you upgrade > 4GB TOTAL RAM (system RAM + graphics card + other devices). 64-bit also requires “MS approved” (a.k.a. digitally signed) drivers so this “might” help with hardware compatibility, etc. This is MS’s way of trying to get everyone to “move on” if they are able to.

But if you have old programs, they might not work (esp. with 64-bit version). Google “Vista compatibility list”. Knowing a bit about computers helps getting the old problematic ones to work (Internet has a lot of solutions that smart people share).

Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching” (SuperFetch). The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a flash drive/card with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there. Google “AnandTech ReadyBoost Performance” for basic test examples.
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=735
High RAM will be especially helpful for those people who like to leave all their windows open and use Vista’s “S3 sleep mode” (2 watts) so they can resume where they left off almost immediately after they turn their computers on.

If this matters... the nextgen Adobe CS4 64-bit will only be available for Windows. OSX will only get CS4 32-bit.
https://www.macrumors.com/2008/04/03/adobe-photoshop-cs4-to-be-64-bit-for-windows-32-bit-for-mac/

 

[powz]

Does anyone know if it's possible to simply "upgrade" from Vista 32 bit to 64 bit or will I have to do a fresh OS install?

 

[MKnight]

Does anyone know if it's possible to simply "upgrade" from Vista 32 bit to 64 bit or will I have to do a fresh OS install?

Nope, you need to reinstall the OS.

 

[rasmasyean]

Well...If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and 32-bit will be “obsolete”…

“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.”
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx

Not sure what bootcamping supports, but I guess you'll have to research this.

 

[Stridder44]

Oh my God this thread is still alive? Well for the record, I've been running Vista 64 and it's been awesome. If you can, go for 64.

 

[emda82]

No. of Processors.

Found out today that all Vista Home editions only support 1 physical processor. So I would go for either Business edition or Ultimate.. just a thought.

 

[Stridder44]

Found out today that all Vista Home editions only support 1 physical processor. So I would go for either Business edition or Ultimate.. just a thought.

Oh God yes Home Basic is useless. Home Premium/Business is where it's at (if you don't want to go for Ultimate).

 

[rasmasyean]

Found out today that all Vista Home editions only support 1 physical processor. So I would go for either Business edition or Ultimate.. just a thought.

You mean a whole processor? Or just one core?

You can have 1 Core 2 Quad with it right?

 

[emda82]

You mean a whole processor? Or just one core?

You can have 1 Core 2 Quad with it right?

Home Basic and Premium supports unlimited cores, but not two processors say like the MacPro.. But with your Core 2 Quad you'll be fine. Was a little bit tired last night when i wrote that reply.