vista x64? is it good

[ripken204]

is anyone running vista x64? if so how do you think it compares to the 32bit version?

Edited January 7, 2007 by ripken204

[cluberti]

It depends on what you're going to do with it, and what you're going to run on it. I've been running x64 versions of Windows for quite some time now, back to the x64 XP betas, and currently run Vista x64 RTM on my own boxes. It's great and I've got no program or driver compatibility issues, but you do need to check that before you jump in. Also, I do find x64 faster for most tasks than x86, but again, driver support (and the quality of those drivers) does affect x64 performance immensely - if you've got good driver support and your apps run, I'd say go with x64 (make sure you've got at least 2GB of RAM for Vista though, as x64 generally requires more memory due to more registers and address space used by applications than x96).

[fizban2]

if you plan on using apps that are very resource intensive, defiantly give 64 bit a try, but like cluberti said, PLEASE check you Hardware first and make sure there is stable drivers for it, cause that will either give you an excellent experiance or will drive you insane

[ripken204]

well im mainly asking b/c a few months back, wernt there major problems with x64? if you all say its working well then i'll give it a try. ive been using xp x64 for a year now and i love it so its definetly vista time.

[LLXX]

Very limited backwards-compatibility at the moment.

And drivers are an issue.

[jaws75]

If you own a 64bit cpu why wouldn't you run a 64bit os? Why did you buy it then?

Works great for me!

The only problem I have is no driver for my Canon scanner. I rarely scan anyway.

[CoffeeFiend]

If you own a 64bit cpu why wouldn't you run a 64bit os?

Because 64 bit OSes aren't quite there yet (IMO) - many issues, from drivers, to non-compatible software (and general lack of 64 bit apps), apps using more RAM, and countless other little things. As Paul Thurott puts it in his Vista review: "x64 is still a second-class citizen"

64 bit is very nice in theory, but it just doesn't deliver yet. In a year or two perhaps. By then software availability and driver support will be better. And RAM will be a bit cheaper, making setups with >4GB RAM more common. Right now the only reason I see to bother is a handful of apps using the extra CPU registers (making them a bit faster), and very little more - nothing to outweigh the many disadvantages (and end up running everything thru WOW64 for no reason). But right now, I see no reason at all for me to use a 64 bit OS.

Why did you buy it then?

Because pretty much all the new CPUs are 64 bit, and it makes no sense for one to go out of his way to ensure his CPU doesn't support it?

[ripken204]

x64 is second class? i would like you to explain that. if x86 is first class, then why is there a whole lot more x86 than x64? isnt the 1st class suppose to be small? and better? imo x64 is faster and more stable...

[cluberti]

Well, I can see that there aren't native x64 apps, but I've yet to run across one (other than antivirus/antispyware or requires special DCOM permissions : read insecure) that doesn't run just fine on x64. Also, the WOW64 layer does provide an environment for x86 apps to run on the 64bit OS, but if you're using x64 (not Itanic) the software isn't running in an emulated environment, it's running native 32bit on the x64 hardware, so no speed hits there or anything of that nature. Also, if you're running an x86 application that was compiled as large address space aware, you get 4GB of usermode process space rather than 2GB on x86, so that's a benefit as well.

Drivers are the big sticking point, to be sure, but for most of us, I would doubt that applications would be.

[CoffeeFiend]

x64 is second class? i would like you to explain that

That's Paul Thurrott's words. Perhaps you should ask him? But then again, it explains it all in his review.

if x86 is first class, then why is there a whole lot more x86 than x64?

More x86 stuff being available is a bad thing? Not sure I'm following you here.

isnt the 1st class suppose to be small? and better? imo x64 is faster and more stable...

No! That's not the point at all. Small? Both are comparable. Better? It currently is (IMO). x64 is somewhat faster, partially because of the extra CPU registers, but a very slight advantage in speed is not a very big deal, like a different car that can go 10km/h faster isn't necessarily a better car, one has to look at the other issues. Stability? Depends on your drivers a great deal, I frankly see no advantage here (x86 code is already rock stable nowadays, again, unless one has crappy drivers or broken hardware).

How it's a 2nd class citizen? Because MS making a x64 version seems like an afterthought. 32 bit Vista was only put out once most major issues were ironed out. As for the 64 bit version, there are still lots of problems from what I see (again, read Thurrott's review for some examples of what doesn't work and such). There's not enough pressure on hardware manufacturers to release 64 bit drivers (and good ones at that). Not nearly enough pressure is put on developers to make 64 bit software available (many still don't care at all!) Their own dev tools (.NET) and documentation for 64 bit were quite late (never available for 1.0/1.1), and still aren't on par with their 32 bit counterparts either, although they're slowly getting there.

Perhaps it has to do with the general opinion that most people have towards 64 bit computing: there's just no need for it (on the desktop) yet. The main advantage people see is the bigger address space, but most people or apps can't really use that much RAM, and it's not cheap enough for most people to have 8GB just yet. For a lot of things, a 64 bit version would mainly use a bit more memory, and give almost no benefits -- not enough to outweigh the driver problems alone.

Personally, the only thing I might miss from not going 64 bit right now is somewhat faster xvid encoding. It'll take a lot more than that for me to switch.

[cluberti]

I'd actually like to address some of Mr. Thurrott's points here, if I may, regarding x64 Vista:

Sadly, the various benefits of the x64 Vista versions are counterbalanced by a number of limitations, the most important of which are compatibility issues. 16-bit applications are not supported, which is less problematic than it was a few years ago, but still an issue for some applications that use legacy application installers.

That's true, but there are very few installers (most are old wise-based installers, too) for 32bit apps that are 16bit. Also, running 16bit code on an x64 processor is impossible, due to the lack of hardware support for 16bit execution - and emulation is frankly out of the question, as Microsoft has been trying to quash 16bit code since Win95. Let's move into the late 90's here.

32-bit device drivers are not supported, so you can't use any of the existing hardware drivers out there, but must instead use the subset of x64-based drivers out there. This situation will improve over time, but x64 Vista users are going to be orphaning hardware. You'll also need to bring along a hardware compatibility list when shopping for new peripherals, shades of the bad old NT 4.0 days.

In a sense, it's true - old hardware likely won't work in Vista (mostly old peripherals and old multimedia cards, audio and video). But especially for the old stuff, if it was made over seven years ago, or was designed for Windows 98, don't expect it to work in Vista. Vista is 3 releases from Win98. This all boils down to hardware and drivers - make sure you get x64 compatible hardware, and it's really not a problem. I don't see this as a problem for new purchases, but upgrades obviously might require some tweaking (which folks rightly might not want to fork out $$$ for).

One of the key features of Windows Vista, automatic registry and file redirection--which, when combined with Microsoft's per-application and per-application-class "shimming," is responsible for most of this operating system's application compatibility capabilities--is not available on the x64 versions of Windows Vista. This is a major handicap and will presumably mean that many legacy applications simply will not run on the Windows Vista x64 versions. Too, new 64-bit applications will need to adhere to the new Windows Vista application standards in order to run correctly on these versions. That means that even some software written specifically for XP x64 might not work correctly.

Again, if it doesn't require a 32bit filter driver or insecure DCOM permissions, it's very likely going to work (x64 hardware can still run 32bit code natively, and it's still the Windows kernel running underneath). The filter driver issue is addressed in those applications by releasing x64 versions (antivirus, antispyware, backup software, CD burning software perhaps, etc). Again, I've not run across any application that doesn't run on Vista x64 under WOW properly, but I'm sure they're out there. The pool of apps that just "won't work" is going to be smaller than those that do, and you can always download the Application Compatibility toolkit and get your app to work if possible before givign up.

Those hoping to upgrade should be aware of a few issues, too. 32-bit versions of XP can only be upgraded to 32-bit versions of Windows Vista. And Windows XP Professional x64 Edition can only be upgraded to 64-bit versions of Windows Vista (Business and above).

Isn't that obvious? You can't mix and match, it's either all or nothing. "Upgrading" 32bit to 64bit would be a complete reinstallation anyway, considering ALL of the binaries on x64 are different than their 32bit cousins (both architecturally and, in some cases, location-wise).

Finally, it's worth noting that while Microsoft is proudly trumpeting the fact that Vista's new modular architecture will allow corporations to rollout Vista to multiple desktop types using only a single Windows Imaging Format (WIM)-based installation image, the truth is a bit more complicated. Companies that plan to rollout both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista versions will need to maintain separate install images for both 32-bit and x64 Vista versions.

See above - they aren't the same, and they can't be treated as such.

If these are his issues, that really isn't a long list of complications, as he calls it. Again, if your hardware has drivers, and you've got x64 versions of your antivirus (and antispyware) software, you should be able to run x64 without issue. If you don't, you'll have to change some things, and that could put people off. But don't discount x64 before you at least research it. I know crahak has some good reasons for not using x64 from previous posts, but everyone should at least consider it before making a decision.

[CoffeeFiend]

If these are his issues, that really isn't a long list of complications, as he calls it. Again, if your hardware has drivers, and you've got x64 versions of your antivirus (and antispyware) software, you should be able to run x64 without issue.

I agree with almost everything you said - just not the "without issue" part. It's not hugely problematic (if you have the required drivers). Even though Vista (or XP x64) looks good on paper when it comes to compatibility, there are still many bugs, glitches and issues, e.g. VWD 2005 (MS' own dev tools - and one I use a great deal) that won't even install (no word about the other products, but likely same story, and also lots of little things like VS2005 being 32 bit, hence running under WOW64, can't directly debug 64 bit apps so it has to use remote debugging), glitches in games and such things. Lots of people aren't too happy about the driver signing enforcement on Vista x64 either.

Again, there is no single major issue, but it all adds up. All these little bugs and glitches easily get very annoying, and take time to work around or fix. But if one has fully supported hardware, then I don't see any reason not to try it. Hopefully everything will work. x64 is definitely the way things will go in the future. It'll replace x86, no doubts about it, it's only a matter of time. All I'm saying is that it'll be far easier to do the switch in a year or two, when the 64 bit "world" will be more mature (most bugs and compatibility things worked out, more drivers available, more apps available for it, etc), and by then people will have even less older/unsupported hardware (one can plan on replacing them over the next couple years - or keep an old box/OS for it). I see it as a bit easier to stick with x86 for now (no hassles, already have drivers for everything), and do the switch later on. There's no major compelling reason to do the switch just yet anyways.

[LLXX]

Perhaps it has to do with the general opinion that most people have towards 64 bit computing: there's just no need for it (on the desktop) yet. The main advantage people see is the bigger address space, but most people or apps can't really use that much RAM, and it's not cheap enough for most people to have 8GB just yet. For a lot of things, a 64 bit version would mainly use a bit more memory, and give almost no benefits -- not enough to outweigh the driver problems alone.

Indeed, many supercomputers, including the world's fastest (IBM's Blue Gene) still use 32-bit processors. There was a journal article called "An Extra Thirty-Two Useless Bits"... can't remember much of it now...

[TheTripleX]

How can a supercomputer use 32 bit processors? That's non-sense. I am sure that that computer doesn't run Windows so they can complain about the lack of x64 drivers. It probably runs either a specially designed OS either Linux or BSD. The Play Station 2 CPU is 128 bit from what I know.

Edited January 9, 2007 by TheTripleX

[CoffeeFiend]

How can a supercomputer use 32 bit processors? That's non-sense. I am sure that that computer doesn't run Windows so they can complain about the lack of x64 drivers. It probably runs either a specially designed OS either Linux or BSD. The Play Station 2 CPU is 128 bit from what I know.

How is it nonsense or why couldn't it? If one were making a new supercomputer right now, of course it would be 64 bit, as pretty much all high-end CPUs all are (be they x64, Itanic, PPC, etc), but Blue Gene isn't exactly new (although it's still a very powerful beast). But supercomputers don't typically require 64 bit CPUs (unless you have very specific needs for your individual nodes). It's just a lot of smaller nodes working together as a whole, each node can perfectly use a 32 bit CPU, there's no problems with that. Just like for clusters or HPC in general. Blue Gene uses 32 bit PPC CPUs. If they need more power, they typically just throw more nodes at it. And of course it doesn't run windows. Windows just isn't a player in that market (HPC/clusters) at all. No news there. Unix has been the platform of choice for a very long time, but has been replaced by Linux in recent years.

People seem to think that 64 bit is magically twice as good as 32 bit or something (too much hype lately). Just like they tend to compare cameras based on megapixels. It's not like the PS2's custom CPU being 128 bit makes it such as powerful chip (it basically gets slaughtered by plain old 32 bit P4s). Like most consoles (like those using Cell CPUs nowadays), they're primarily doing graphics work - not general purpose computing and such. SSE offers 128 bit registers and such too (to work with graphics stuff). Graphics (i.e. gaming consoles), general purpose computing and HPC are too different loads to even try to compare "bitness" like that (especially since some are using more specialized CPUs). 64 bit CPUs just don't have anything magical that makes 'em super powerful, twice faster or anything. It's mainly: larger address space (not useful yet for most scenarios) and more/bigger registers (the main advantage right now) making complex math easier and such. That's pretty much all you're getting out of 64 bits. Extra registers would definitely boost CPU performance a bit in HPC/cluster applications too (making each node do its calculations faster), but again, there's no reasons at all for 32 bit chips not to work.