32-bit or 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista?

With more and more desktop computers and notebooks now equipped with 64-bit microprocessors and x64 CPUs from Intel and AMD such as AMD Opteron, AMD Turion 64/64 X2, AMD Sempron, Intel Pentium D/Extreme Edition and Intel Core 2 Duo, it’s naturally for Windows Vista users to ponder if they should go for 32-bit or 64-bit edition of Windows Vista, as unlike Windows XP, both different architecture versions have already been released to the market.

x64 64-bit microprocessor architecture CPU is backward compatible with x86 (32-bit) architecture (that’s why x64 is sometimes also referred as x86-64), thus a x64 CPU can runs both 32-bit or 64-bit of Windows Vista. For users who purchased a branded computer from OEMs such as HP, Dell, Lenovo, Acer and etc, 32-bit Windows Vista is installed and supplied. In fact, for Vista Basic, Business, and Home Premium, only the 32-bit DVD-ROM is included. Only Vista Ultimate retail box contains both the 32-bit DVD-ROM and 64-bit DVD-ROM. To get the 64-bit DVD-ROM media, users need to follow instructions to order a 32-bit CD-ROM or 64-bit DVD-ROM directly from Microsoft for a minimal fee, including shipping and handling charges. This hassle and cost to run 64-bit Windows Vista must have a lot of people to think carefully before deciding whether to upgrade and migrate to 64-bit system.

Theoretically, 64-bit computing system has advantages and will yield improved performance, other than allows Windows Vista to take advantage of more than 4GB of RAM memory. However, is it really the case?

Flexbeta performed 32bit vs 64bit Windows Vista comparison test (albeit on RC1 Vista release) with the result showing 64-bit Vista hardly any noticeably faster than 32-bit Vista. In some tests 64-bit processing is even slower than 32-bit. This scenario is probably due to the fact that a lot of drivers, codecs, software applications, scripts and etc are still based on 32bit code base, and haven’t been ported to take advantage of 64-bit system. There’s also reports of incompatibility hardware drivers and other problems on various forum threads.

So as for now, may be the better choice for average users will be 32-bit Windows Vista. Hopefully, do expect all things 64-bit in the near future, as more and more software and hardware vendor supports 64-bit computing. For future proof, 64-bit is definitely the way to go.

Share and contribute or get technical support and help at My Digital Life Forums.

This entry was posted on Sunday, April 22nd, 2007 at 2:35 am and is filed under Windows Vista. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

11 Responses to “32-bit or 64-bit (x64) Windows Vista?”

Andrew Askew
April 22nd, 2007 05:08
1

damn, I would go for the 64-bit if i could, and just deal with all of the incompatibilities and whatnot, unfortunately that’s me -=p

yes, I also did the upgrade to Windows ME even though it was crap cuz it was ‘newer’
ATGardner
April 22nd, 2007 12:42
2

Windows XP x64 has been around here for a long time now. I have been using it for about a year and a half prior to moving to Vista x64.
It still is a decent OS.
Just in case you haven’t noticed.
lord deasth
April 22nd, 2007 15:04
3

64bit rock, i have the vista rc 2 64 bit .

since this site tell you how to make the os work forever i am happy i found this site
my digital life.
kay
April 23rd, 2007 01:27
4

been looking for somwhere to tell us which version to use.
id apriciate it if sum1 can clarify a few things for us.
i read on a thread that adobe flash does not supports X64 windows vista, cans any1 tell us if its true
and if any other major program doesnt work. thanks in advance
Shaggy
April 23rd, 2007 03:14
5

I’ve been using 64 bit vista and 64 xp before that for a while. The only problems i’ve noticed is getting a 64 bit antivirus and getting 64 bit drivers. All of the components i’m using on an asus mb have got 64 bit drivers.

Flash works in ie. Games run fine. Just watch out for registry cleaners - make sure they are 64 bit compatible.
kay
April 23rd, 2007 18:34
6

thnx shaggy, about antivirus programs, do u think bitdefender v10 will work, coz iv been to their website and i cant find anywhere where it mentions X64 compatible, also would NOD32 work?
thanks alot!

best to clarify things up before making a decision UC
ATGardner
April 23rd, 2007 19:24
7

nod32 works fine on vista x64 and xp x64.
don’t know about bitdefender.
no problems whatsoever with flash on IE. java plugin for explorer doesn’t come with JRE 64 bit, but you can just install JRE 32 bit from the sun site, and it works fine.
Railwhore
April 24th, 2007 07:15
8

You would have to be a MORON to use a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU. And some of these driver manufactures, it’s like 64bit snuck up on them out of nowhere. It’s ridiculous the lack of 64bit drivers and software.
Guru Lama
May 1st, 2007 23:55
9

Hi People,

It’s always good to visit your component manufacturers for the latest drivers regularly. Most higher end component manufacturers will offer drivers for the x64 OS versions but if it helps in making a decision on which to use. Ensure you have all you need to make the change before doing it as you could end up disappointed. Thus far, I have found ATI, CANON and INTEL all to be excellent for current drivers but some other less common devices cerrtainly ave caused some eadaces for those I help with computing. Just be smart and stay ahead of any possible challenges with driver support by checking and downloading first. It’s safest and quick if you know your products and models. The x64 version of VISTA ULTIMATE is working faultlessly for me with no problems but I did check first and dowloaded everything I needed first.
How to Check if Windows Vista, XP and 2003 System Is 32-bit or 64-bit (x86 or x64) Version » My Digital Life
March 19th, 2008 02:32
10

[...] as x86 or x64) based operating system, which requires specifically built software application (See x86 or x64 OS). For computer or PC that has been installed long time ago and user forgets about its version, or [...]
rasmasyean
July 12th, 2008 13:37
11

I know this is an old article, in case anyone still reads this…at this point I would say that unless you have no substitute for 32-bit apps that don’t work (e.g. need for business), go 64-bit.

I would guess that when things like Adobe CS4 64-bit (available only in 32-bit for Mac for that guy who mentioned OSX) and Office 13, etc. even if there is a 32-bit version and all, you would be slowed down a lot with having lower RAM. Remember that if you have just a 512 Graphics RAM, your user RAM will only be like 3.2 because of all the other devices. And for those SLI gamers…you can cut the user RAM easily under 2.5GB for 32-bit systems.

You have to also consider SuperFetch.

Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching” (SuperFetch). The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a flash drive/card with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there. Google “AnandTech ReadyBoost Performance” for basic test examples.

High RAM will be especially helpful for those people who like to leave all their windows open and use Vista’s “S3 sleep mode” (2 watts) so they can resume where they left off almost immediately after they turn their computers on.