[ricksome]

Does anyone have any XPerience (pun intended) with this version? Does it really work faster than the 32 bit edition because it move 64 bits of data at a time. I have Windows XP and I am toying with the idea of a new notebook with this version of Windows. I've read horror stories about Vista all over the internet. Thanx for any info, opinions, etc...Rick

 

[BetaLyr]

64-bit better utilizes dual-core processors, making it faster than 32-bit. Also, with Vista, 32-bit (with SP1) can recognize about 4GB RAM, but can only use ~3GB. With 64-bit, it can use all of the 4GB.

I've been running a ThinkPad R61 with Vista Premium 32-bit (2GB RAM, T8300, nVidia 140M) for about 3 weeks now, and it's been really great. So far, no problems with speed or anything at all.

Don't believe all of those horror stories. People only say something when something goes wrong. There are many satisfied, but silent Vista users out there. There's actually been a recent CNET "hot topic" on this. Silent Vista-loving majority? - CNET Buzz Out Loud Lounge Forums

 

[Edwood]

Vista Home Premium x64 edition installed on my E8400 at 3.6GHz with 8GB of RAM. And it's because of the 8GB of RAM that I have the 64 bit version installed. It's my main workstation, so I need all that extra RAM for graphics work, namely Photoshop.

-Ed

 

[PYROphonez]

I'm running 64-Bit Vista Business with an E8400 still at stock speed and 4 GB ram. No issues other than ntune refusing to work, I just need to overclock some time soon.
For my purposes, Vista is just fine; however my dad has had to set up Virtual PC on his Vista pc in order to use QuickPayroll, amongst other pieces of software not working with Vista.

 

[JmRoq]

If you are able to get all the software you use to run on it, as well as drivers for all your devices, there isn't any reason not to use it. As mentioned, being able to utilize more than 4Gb of ram is a major reason to switch. My Asus notebook came with 32-bit Vista Home premium and 2 gigs of ram. I upgraded to 4 gigs of ram and Vista Ultimate 64-bit and I'm happy with the switch. The biggest con I would say is the availability of drivers. It can be spotty depending on the vendor.

 

[skyline889]

I have Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my pc (E6600 @ 3.6ghz, 4gb RAM) and for the most part love it. It does use more ram than XP but it also allows me to utilize all 4gbs and also install even more ram if I need it; this definitely wasn't possible with the 32bit XP I had. Driver support is pretty good now but if you use CS3 I would avoid SP1, AI CS3 and Bridge CS3 don't work with Vista Aero so your theme will default to Windows Basic whenever you start these programs up. Vista Aero will reactivate when you exit so it's not a real problem but it is annoying. I also don't like the new simplified defragmenter they put into Vista but it's just a small quibble. Overall though I love the interface, the gadgets/sidebar are a nice touch and CS3 does run noticeably faster on Vista 64 than it did on XP home which was a very nice change for me.

 

[zachary80]

If it supports your programs and drivers, go with vista64

I run my q6600 with XP 32bit

 

[The Legend]

Quote:

Originally Posted by BetaLyr /img/forum/go_quote.gif 64-bit better utilizes dual-core processors, making it faster than 32-bit. Also, with Vista, 32-bit (with SP1) can recognize about 4GB RAM, but can only use ~3GB. With 64-bit, it can use all of the 4GB. I've been running a ThinkPad R61 with Vista Premium 32-bit (2GB RAM, T8300, nVidia 140M) for about 3 weeks now, and it's been really great. So far, no problems with speed or anything at all. Don't believe all of those horror stories. People only say something when something goes wrong. There are many satisfied, but silent Vista users out there. There's actually been a recent CNET "hot topic" on this. Silent Vista-loving majority? - CNET Buzz Out Loud Lounge Forums

Your statement isn't entirely true. Having a 64-bit OS does not better utilize a dual, or better phrased as 'multicore', processor any better/worse than a 32-bit OS. The key is in the amount of memory that can be addressed and its ability to work with 64bits of data per cycle. This aids in the use of working with large data sets such as media editing/compressing files.

Quote:

Originally Posted by PYROphonez /img/forum/go_quote.gif I'm running 64-Bit Vista Business with an E8400 still at stock speed and 4 GB ram. No issues other than ntune refusing to work, I just need to overclock some time soon. For my purposes, Vista is just fine; however my dad has had to set up Virtual PC on his Vista pc in order to use QuickPayroll, amongst other pieces of software not working with Vista.

Quote:

Originally Posted by zachary80 /img/forum/go_quote.gif If it supports your programs and drivers, go with vista64 I run my q6600 with XP 32bit

I ran Vista x64 Ultimate for nearly 4 months and while the increased speed and memory address were nice, thing such as mandatory driver signing, although it can be disabled, does not play nice with certain freeware. Also, the UAC in Vista can give headaches at times even while disabled.

Overall, its a good choice if you use mainstream apps and relatively new software. Driver support really isn't an issue since driver support is much better than it was for XP x64.

 

[soloz2]

I've been running vista for well over a year now, but only switched to 64bit about 2mo ago. So far so good.

q6600
8gb g.skill DDR2800
dfi p35 dark
evga 8800GTS 512
Auzen Prelude (ERS, opa627 op-amps)

I also have ERS on the top of my PSU so my sound card doesn't get (or gets minimal) interference from either my gfx (above) or psu (below)
Plus, I swapped the stock 8800gts cooler for an Arctic Cooling Accelero S1 Rev. 2 w/ a Yate Loon strapped to it for cool and silent operation. I just need to get a quieter cpu cooler now.