Vista X64...........Worth Moving To?

[adrian2055]

Hi Guys, Me Again ,

This time I don't have any problems Just some questions.

I was playing around today when I think I discovered that my laptop can use the 64-bit version of vista (correct me if I'm wrong).

http://img509.imageshack.us/my.php?image=zxvzvec1.jpg

If this is true I'm wondering if it's worth it to switch from the 32-bit version of vista to the 64-bit version, and if someone here knows about the wow emulator (I think that's what it's called) that can run 32-bit programs on a 64-bit pc.

Now these are my current settings:

1.8 GHz AMD Turion64 Mobile ML-32 Processor

Seagate Momentus 80GB HardDrive (5400RPM)

512 MB DDR RAM

PIONEER DVR-K16 8x DVD-RW Drive

ATI Mobility Radeon Xpress 200 Series (128 Dedicated, 256 Shared Video Memory)

Conexant AC-Link Audio Driver

The only thing that will change is my memory. I'm buying 2GB of ram in a few days (called HP tech support todat and they said that I can go any higher). Is it worth the switch?

Edited December 27, 2008 by adrian2055

[Mt.Dew]

What OS are you running now?

Also, using x64 uses more ram than x86, so that is something to consider. On x86 with 4Gb or RAM, average ram usage is 700-900mb. On x64, RAM usage is 800mb to 1.2Gb.

Also, x64 has a really hard time making RAM free after software installations (mostly games) and requires a reboot to clear up the RAM.

Going x64 however, helps keep away various forms of malicious nasties. Not all, but a bunch are useless as they cannot function in 64-bit.

Extractions and copying is still very slow on x64. Faster than pre-SP1, but still waaaay to slow compared to XP

However, after using Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 since July 2008, I would say hold off. It still has issues and stiiiilllll feels like an un-finished product.

[adrian2055]

What OS are you running now?

Also, using x64 uses more ram than x86, so that is something to consider. On x86 with 4Gb or RAM, average ram usage is 700-900mb. On x64, RAM usage is 800mb to 1.2Gb.

Also, x64 has a really hard time making RAM free after software installations (mostly games) and requires a reboot to clear up the RAM.

Going x64 however, helps keep away various forms of malicious nasties. Not all, but a bunch are useless as they cannot function in 64-bit.

Extractions and copying is still very slow on x64. Faster than pre-SP1, but still waaaay to slow compared to XP

However, after using Vista Ultimate SP1 x64 since July 2008, I would say hold off. It still has issues and stiiiilllll feels like an un-finished product.

Thanks for the reply. I'm using vista business 32-bit (vlited) now. I kept hearing so much about x64 that I thought I would jump in and see what all the fuss is about, but if it's as slow as you're saying it is w/ copying and extracting files and uses more memory to function I think I need to hold off. Vista x86 is slow enough when It comes to copying files to my external drive. I don't need anything that goes slower.

[CoffeeFiend]

Extractions and copying is still very slow on x64.

For you perhaps. I first installed Vista x86 after SP1 came out, and I've never, ever had any of those issues. In fact, on many file operations, it's noticeably faster.

Either ways, I certainly wouldn't want to run Vista on 512MB, much less the x64 version (6GB here, moving up to 8GB in a few days). In fact, I wouldn't even want to run XP on that much... Buy some more RAM if you don't like having a slow PC. Oh, and BTW, most external drives are kind of slow (USB2 controllers are like that, most of such devices top around 30-some MBs/sec in real-life, nothing to do with Vista).

Edited December 28, 2008 by crahak

[adrian2055]

Extractions and copying is still very slow on x64.

For you perhaps. I first installed Vista x86 after SP1 came out, and I've never, ever had any of those issues. In fact, on many file operations, it's noticeably faster.

Either ways, I certainly wouldn't want to run Vista on 512MB, much less the x64 version (6GB here, moving up to 8GB in a few days). In fact, I wouldn't even want to run XP on that much... Buy some more RAM if you don't like having a slow PC. Oh, and BTW, most external drives are kind of slow (USB2 controllers are like that, most of such devices top around 30-some MBs/sec in real-life, nothing to do with Vista).

I'm not gonna run it on 512MB. I'm not crazy. I just got this laptop last week from a co-worker and I plan on upgrading the memory next friday. I just had a vlited vista disc handy so I installed it and put all my programs on there so I didn't have to do that next week.

Edited December 28, 2008 by adrian2055

[Octopuss]

I have been trying 64bit vLited version of Ultimate. On 2GB RAM. Jesus that's pathetically slow. 4GB is reasonable minimum I would say. And fast computer as well.

[spacesurfer]

I have been trying 64bit vLited version of Ultimate. On 2GB RAM. Jesus that's pathetically slow. 4GB is reasonable minimum I would say. And fast computer as well.

What processor?

I never had a problem with 2GB and Core 2 Duo. However, I just upgraded to 6 GB for virtual machines - I didn't see a performance gain but I can run virtual machines without a problem.

[esecallum]

I have been trying 64bit vLited version of Ultimate. On 2GB RAM. Jesus that's pathetically slow. 4GB is reasonable minimum I would say. And fast computer as well.

What processor?

I never had a problem with 2GB and Core 2 Duo. However, I just upgraded to 6 GB for virtual machines - I didn't see a performance gain but I can run virtual machines without a problem.

i just bought a NEW duo core 2.8 GHZ pentium for my child with VISTA HOME PREMIUM.

it is very slow.

click

wait 3 seconds for a folder to open.

click wait 3 seconds for another action.

click wait 3 seconds or longer to play music.

it is maddening.

VistaIS constantly checking you are NOT playing PREMIUM CONTENT without PAYING TO THE MPAA/RIAA and all info between the the computer subsytems is ENCRYPTED and DECRYPTED CONSTANTLY.This means higher electricity bills and all your processing power gone to this checking.

it also has tilt bits ready to shut down if any internal voltages changes.

you can add as much memory as you like but the cpu are busy checking for premium content infrinfement.

it i like a virus scanner running constantly at high priority

IT IS CHECKING ON YOU ALL THE TIME THAT YOU ARE NOT PLAYING PREMIUM CONTENT WITHOUT PAYING FOR IT.IF IT DOES IT DOWNGRADES THE QUALITY.THIS MEANS PROCESSING CYCLES LOST CONSTANTLY TO DRM.

Vista is horrible. it is so slow.

slow and frustrating and it keeps updating with endless patches.

i will not be installing this EVER.

CLICK AND WAIT 3 SECONDS.

ARRGHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH!!!!!!!

Edited December 28, 2008 by esecallum

[CoffeeFiend]

Wow, so much FUD and anger in one post.

Just because the preinstalled (by your OEM) Vista sucks and is slow (just like their XP installs for that matter), then Vista then it's a conspiracy involving the RIAA & MPAA, your power bill spikes thru the roof (LOL), Vista sucks and all that. Whatever. I think you forgot to say it causes cancer and AIDS too.

Seriously...

Edit: No 3 second delays on anything here, on my not exactly new box.

Edited December 28, 2008 by crahak

[MrCobra]

Extractions and copying is still very slow on x64.

For you perhaps. I first installed Vista x86 after SP1 came out, and I've never, ever had any of those issues. In fact, on many file operations, it's noticeably faster.

Maybe you know, maybe you dont.....If you turn off Differential File Compression, it gets even faster.

[esecallum]

Wow, so much FUD and anger in one post.

Just because the preinstalled (by your OEM) Vista sucks and is slow (just like their XP installs for that matter), then Vista then it's a conspiracy involving the RIAA & MPAA, your power bill spikes thru the roof (LOL), Vista sucks and all that. Whatever. I think you forgot to say it causes cancer and AIDS too.

Seriously...

Edit: No 3 second delays on anything here, on my not exactly new box.

you seem quite ignorant.the mpaa and riaa pressured MS to put this DRM crap in to vista.

MS lost $28 billion in lost sales as a result.

the results of vista depends on all hardware in the base unit....all that encrypting/decrypting takes cpu cycles....if any part is slow it will slow the whole box...you seem to be working for them...

vista is crap...you can add 208 gigs of ram....it will not change anything as the cpu is busy checking your theft of drm content...and making sure you cannot siphon it off through a leak wire.

checking checking...checking....vista will double your electricity consumption as vista keeps checking...

even a schoolyard boy knows a busy cpu consumes more electricity...

I USE WINDOWS ME...NO 3 SECOND DELAYS ..I CLICK AND IT WORKS INSTANTLY ON MY ATHLON 1.8GHZ ECS MOTHERBOARD WITH AMD 3200+ CPU.

I plan to replace the vista crap with server 2003 configured as a desktop.Everyone reports excellent results.

you are working for them to gloss over this piece of DRM riddled spyware.

i will never install vista...NEVER.NEVER...NEEEVVERRRRRR.

DO YOU HEAR ME?

[oioldman]

i thought this thread would be usefull as thought of changing from xp 64 to vista 64, but went from informative to bashing - please stick to the point folks and now it is is no use to me.

[Felipe]

DO YOU HEAR ME?

All right, slow down, run around the block a few times to get some air.

the results of vista depends on all hardware in the base unit....all that encrypting/decrypting takes cpu cycles....if any part is slow it will slow the whole box

Can you provide some evidence to support this ? Or do you mean the TPM chip that supports Bitlocker ? I don't have that and Vista works just fine.

checking checking...checking....vista will double your electricity consumption as vista keeps checking...

You can NOT be serious.

I USE WINDOWS ME...NO 3 SECOND DELAYS ..I CLICK AND IT WORKS INSTANTLY ON MY ATHLON 1.8GHZ ECS MOTHERBOARD WITH AMD 3200+ CPU.

Good for you, although you have confused a few things : a 3200+ is not running 1.8Ghz.

Also for newer applications/games/hardware you're toast as they are no longer supporting the 98/Me platform.

I plan to replace the vista crap with server 2003 configured as a desktop.Everyone reports excellent results.

It's still going to take a bit hacking to get it running as a desktop OS. Are you going to pay for the license yourself ?

To the topic starter :

If you're now running 32-bit Vista, I don't see a reason to step over to 64-bit, unless you plan on using more than 3Gb of memory.

I've recently moved to a new CoreDuo build with 4GB and chose to install Vista x64, while I ran XP on an older Athlon 64 with 2GB before. Suits my needs perfectly.

And yes, like someone else said : an external drive is generally slower. Especially if it's on USB you'll feel that the drive is working. If you're working a lot with big files on an external drive, I'd recommend firewire. It's not going to be faster, but it'll keep your pc free to do other things.

[CoffeeFiend]

Some people have their beanie on a little too tight I think. Zero facts in that post either, not really surprising (and of course nothing to back it up, as it's just not the case more than obviously).

Some people chose to embarrass themselves in public, it's kind of entertaining. I hope they don't let facts or reality stand in their way (and stop) as we'd totally miss out...

Edited December 29, 2008 by crahak

[spacesurfer]

I plan to replace the vista crap with server 2003 configured as a desktop.Everyone reports excellent results.

you are working for them to gloss over this piece of DRM riddled spyware.

You accuse someone for working for MS and yet you want to replace your OS with 2003 and are using ME!!

Hummm, why not just switch to Apple and be done with it.

The problem is with the user in this case and you are outnumbered. Initially, I was reluctant to switch to Vista as well but now I find it hard to go back to XP.