Vista x64 Vs. X86

[Lunchbox]

No, they're still in an emulated 32bit environment. They still have 4GB virtual address space, of which 2GB is available to the app.

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.

[redxii]

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...

Edited November 21, 2008 by redxii

[cluberti]

No, they're still in an emulated 32bit environment. They still have 4GB virtual address space, of which 2GB is available to the app.

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.

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 .

[Lunchbox]

No, they're still in an emulated 32bit environment. They still have 4GB virtual address space, of which 2GB is available to the app.

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.

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

[cluberti]

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 .

[weEvil]

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...

You can but it serves no purpose. 64-bit apps use slightly more memory because of the x64 overhead. Its like this by design.

Your 2GB just became 1.8GB.

[MrCobra]

The main benefit for 64bit is access to more than 4 gigs of RAM. With more and more OEMs putting 4 gigs in their computers and with the X58 chipset that supports 24 gigs of system RAM, 64bit is the way to go. Even if you don't plan on adding more memory for a while, I'd still go with Vista 64bit as it's better to have it now and not need it than to need it and not have it. It's a bit faster and a bit more stable than its 32bit counter part.

As another poster stated, if you need something that doesn't work right with it, run a VM and use the software there.

And the rumors about Windows 7 seem to indicate that 64 bit will be the preferred flavor (although 32 bit will be available).

I sure hope so. I think MSFT should start pushing for 64bit to be main stream.

Edited November 23, 2008 by MrCobra

[redxii]

Your 2GB just became 1.8GB.

After the onboard video it's technically "1.93GB" and 64-bit task manager reports perhaps 3MB less. I'll stick to XP anyway, seeing how nVidia refuses to make something simple as S.M.A.R.T., that's been around a long time, work in Vista.