Vista - difference between 64 bit and 32 bit os

I am about to purchase a new notebook pc. Am looking at a computer that
gives me the option to purchase Vista Home Premium (32 bit) or Vista
Ultimate (64 bit). I had checked the option to get Home Premium, instead of
the 64 bit Ultimate. However, one thing I wanted to make sure was to get as
much ram as I could possibly put into this machine, which is 4 gigs. Beneath
the memory options - the company states - that if I purchase 4 gigs - that
they "recommend a 64-bit Operating System to ensure a full experience with
4GB memory". If I understand correctly, this merely means that I can get
more usage out of certain things with the 4 gigs of memory *if* I have the
64 bit edition, right? I have Googled the difference between 64 bit and 32
bit and do not quite understand it all.

What is the difference between the 64 bit and 32 bit os? Does it really
matter if I don't get the 64 bit edition and still get 4 gigs of ram?

Annie

Stick with 32 bit Vista, mainly for compatibility reasons, such as device
drivers and the majority of most software you are likely to run will do just
fine with Vista 32 bit and 4 GBs of RAM. Vista 64-bit true power lies in its
ability to address large amounts of memory beyond 4 GBs, since the buck
really stops at 4 GBs for 32 Bit Vista. There have been performance test
that yes prove that Vista 64-bit performs good with 4 GBs or more RAM but
then again, there are trade offs such as compatibility which I previously
mentioned.

Some other nice features of Vista include all device drivers must be signed
before they can be installed on the system, Patch Guard which prevents the
OS kernel from be patched or altered by third party software. So, there are
some try security benefits there too.
--
Andre
Blog: http://adacosta.spaces.live.com
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog...3DB!9709.entry

"Annie" <Annie@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eJtt3SlHIHA.1324@xxxxxx

Annie wrote:
The 64 bit version "Can" use 4 G, the 32 bit version can't quite use all
of it but having it will do no harm.

Biggest problem you will face is that a lot of software does not cope
well with the 64 bit versions, things like Skype don't work etc. This
will get rectified eventually but not soon in a lot of cases. Drivers
are also a problem, 64 bit drivers often have to be digitally signed or
they cause 64 bit to refuse to install them, if you persist in trying
you will most likely deactivate Vista and when this happens the only
solution Microsoft suggest is "You can buy another copy of Vista"...
10/10 for stupidity for whoever designed that "Feature". People here
will tell you that system restore will get you out of this mess, I can
tell you for sure IT WILL NOT. It "May" do so but you will probably end
up on the phone...

So, with 32 bit you can do everything you want, with 64 bit you are
living on the ragged edge of trying to install something and having lots
of trouble. Anyone telling you otherwise is either lying or has never
used it.

Of course this will get better but unless you have a real need to run
software that is true 64 bit and won't work or has no 32 bit equivalent
it would be best to get the 4G now so it's all the same and ready for
future use but use the 32 bit version until MS Fix the problems they
have created. (If/ When)

So yes, buying a 4 G system is a good idea, but 32 bit has enough
problems with compatibility as it is and 64 bit is much worse, and no
faster unless you are running true 64 both software. On identical
hardware here Vista is noticeably slower than XP but unless you clan to
play shoot 'em up style games that won;t bother you.

<SNIP>

Thanks much for the fast response, am going with the 32 bit for sure. I have
had enough compatibility issues as it is with printers, etc. So Vista is
slower than XP? Grief. If it weren't for my company, I would not use any
Windows os.

Thanks again,
Annie

The maximum memory that a 32bit application can use is 2gb, regardless of
whether the OS is 32bit or 64bit. There are not too many applications for
general use that come even close to using 2gb. Photo and video editing
probably get closest. BUT, a 32bit OS with between 2gb and 3.5gb will acquit
itself well in 90% of all cases

Running a 64bit OS just so 4gb can be seen will not work well for most as
the user will almost certainly come up against driver issues with the
computer itself, and/or present and future acquisition of 'home' oriented
peripheral devices.

--
Mike Hall - MVP
http://msmvps.com/blogs/mikehall/default.aspx
Posting Productively.. http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm



"Annie" <Annie@xxxxxx> wrote in message
news:eJtt3SlHIHA.1324@xxxxxx

Roxanne wrote:
It is slower here in every case running one clean install against
another with identical hardware, in fact if you understand the way Vista
is put together by comparison with XP then if XP runs slower there must
be something wrong with the XP installation. Of course you can "Tweak"
things here and there, and the biggest effect is probably from things
like AV software etc, so much depends on what you add or eliminate.

Vista runs slower than XP on the same hardware because it places greater demand on resources than does XP.

I do not agree with your assesment that there is something wrong with XP if it runs slower than Vista. I originally setup my system to dual-boot between XP and Vista x64 so that I can make accurate comparisons. I found that Vista x64 beats XP in terms of performance, and the applications that are mostly 32 Bit versions give fewer problems. Even my games run better.

Unless you have some kind of specialist requirement like proprietary hardware or software, then if your machine is 64-Bit capable, your best choice would be to use Vista x64.

The stability improvements alone in x64 was enough to convince me.

dzomlija wrote:Then there IS something wrong with your XP install, or else you have it
running a number of things you are not running in Vista 64, which is
quite likely since there are far fewer "Fancy add ons".

There is also NO stability improvement, you can't "Improve" beyond zero
crashes and neither XP, XP64, Vista 32 not Vista 64 has crashed here for
unknown reasons... I could count lots of times Both Vistas have crashed
(if you want to call it that) due to some outside influence but that
would be unfair and inaccurate. XP has NEVER crashed here except after
automatic updates (which is outside interference again) and has remained
extremely stable under high load conditions. Windows 2000 never crashed
either.

The only thing "wrong" with my XP install is that I removed it from my system in May, because after installing Vista, I never booted into XP, and I needed to recover the space being used.

I never said Vista doesn't crash. I said it's more stable than XP. I'm able to leave the system running for longer and can run more applications at once without experiencing a crash.

I experienced a series of unexplained blue screens around August/September, but that was traced to a bad setting in the System BIOS which I corrected. The problem was NOT Vista. I havn't had any crashes for almost 2 months now.

Oh, I've come close to making it crash, but so far Vista has been able to recover from these rare instances, and I continued working. Had I been using XP, it would not have been able to recover, and I would've been forced to reboot to continue working.

That is why I said Vista x64 is more stable

Then your XP installation has a problem. I started using XP Pro 6 years ago when it was first released, and never had a crash caused by an automatic update.

I must seriously question the validity of your claim that Windows XP and Windows 2000 never crashed. The only OS I know that crashes more than XP was one of it's predesessors, Windodws 98.

If it is an OS, whether it be XP, Vista, MacOS or Linux, it will crash at some point. The real question to consider is, How Often?

On Sat, 3 Nov 2007 17:09:19 -0400, "Mike Hall - MVP" <mikehall@xxxxxx>
wrote:
Quit top-posting