Windows Vista: Is 64 bit worth it?
Two things...
by John.Wilkinson
- 9/23/08 4:39 PM
In reply to: What..... that's REALLY strange... by dnheller
1.) The post attribution issue is well known. Just submit an offensive alert to report it. You may also want to see the sticky in the Forum Feedback forum about it.
2.) The link you provided is designed to link the member to his/her own profile, not specifically yours. (That one's thankfully not another glitch, Glenn.)
John
Adobe PE 6/Premiere 4
by agentmoulder - 10/6/08 11:26 AM In reply to: Running 32Bit software on a 64Bit OS. by dnhellerI loaded the Adobe combo above on my sons new Vista x64 laptop last night. It installed fine, but will not run either program. When I click on either icon it just sits there. No error, it just won't run. I curious as to whether this is a x64 issue or not. It seems to run fine on my Vista 32 bit machine. Any ideas? You have confirmed it runs fine on your x64 machine?
Adobe support...
by R. Proffitt - 10/6/08 2:32 PM
In reply to: Adobe PE 6/Premiere 4 by agentmoulder
You paid dearly so ask for the patch from them.
Running 32Bit software on a 64Bit OS
by palmallorca - 8/16/09 7:57 AM In reply to: Running 32Bit software on a 64Bit OS. by dnhellerTo ignorant who claims that Vista 32-bit only detects up to 4BG of memory.
I have been using Vista 32-bit for 2 years now, and I must say that you could not be more wrong in saying that Vista 32-bit only detects up tp 4BG of memory. Because I have 8GB of memory and you're right, Vista 32-bit only detects 3.9GB. But, as soon as you instal Vista Service Pack 1 (Vista SP2 is now also available)Vista 32-bit do detects my full 8GB of my memory.
So perhaps would be better if you get the wrigh advise before you giving the wrrong advice to members of the forum.
Tony
That detection is a sham.
by R. Proffitt - 8/16/09 8:04 AM
In reply to: Running 32Bit software on a 64Bit OS by palmallorca
A sham, a shame or worse? While it REPORTS the memory, Vista 32 still can't use that memory. The reporting had to be fixed for a very simple reason. People were returning machines because of the mis-reported RAM.
The vendors of the machines were upset about it so MSFT patched it up yet the 32 bit OS still at its core will not use that RAM. Just report it.
Shameful sham.
Bob
I don't know
by Jimmy Greystone - 8/16/09 9:05 AM In reply to: That detection is a sham. by R. Proffitt
I don't know. The whole 32-bit addressing thing isn't exactly a big secret. People have known about it since the tech specs for the 386 were released when Intel introduced protected mode processing.
Yes, they could have used something like PAE to get something more akin to the 48-bit memory addressing you have in x86-64 CPUs (may as well get started on telling people that neither Intel or AMD's consumer 64-bit CPUs have 64-bit memory addressing) but then you run into a real quagmire of having to explain to some people with much older systems why they are not able to use more than 4GB of RAM.
I think everyone who understands the technical side of things, realizes that shifting to a 64-bit platform is the best technical option, and the way Microsoft is doing it is quite a bit more gentle than the kick in the teeth Apple tends to deliver when it shifts to a new platform. But in this case, they get kind of caught in a no-win situation. If they don't do the false reporting, people complain because they got suckered into buying a system with 4GB or more or RAM, and Windows is only recognizing about 3.5GB of that. Of course then when people find out that regardless of what it's reporting, it's still only using 3.5GB, they still complain.
I just wish they'd skip 128-bit CPUs and move straight on to 256-bit in the next go around. At the rate things are going, that's probably the only way CPU makers will be able to have a core design with enough staying power to make it profitable.
Software won't work?
by Jelly Baby - 9/6/08 3:35 PM In reply to: Software won't work? by mopscare42You say that "most of your software won't work" (under Vista 64)
What are you using? 32 bit applications, with very few exceptions, install and run without any problem. There's no support for really old 16 bit applications and there were rumours that there were a few 32 bit applications still using 16 bit installers which wouldn't install - but I've never found any.
The only thing I've not been able to get working under Vista 64 is my Nikon film scanner - and that's due to Nikon not providing a 64 bit driver.
Vista 64 Opinion
by Tim De Lord - 9/6/08 1:21 AM In reply to: Is 64 bit worth it? by webaconsI say, it depends, on what you want to use your PC for. I use 64 bit, and let me tell you, I'm very happy with it! I do video editing, and I'm always pleased on the difference, verses, 32 bit, from a time perspective! sounds like for the money, its a nice bang for the buck!:) Now a year ago, all sorts of issues were upoun 64 bit Vista. But now days?? Things have caught up a lot!!
I use Nero ver 8, and it works great! all my printer drivers work! and, I think you'll be surprised, when you find out, how many programs do work with 64 bit Vista. And, You can always try running programs, in the compatability mode. Right click on program to run, go to properties, choose the compatability tab, and choose the "Run this program in compatabilty mode for" What ever you want. XP, Windows 98 etc!! Good Luck!! 
Vista 64
by xtekm - 9/6/08 1:47 AM In reply to: Vista 64 Opinion by Tim De LordI bought Vista when it was first released, and was gutted when it had fundamental flaws - couldn't believe MS would release it to the public in the condition that it was (even after trialling it for business customers for what 3 months before public launch) - eg Copy & moving files would take absolutely ages in calculating how long it would take to do that task, and moving folders would leave undeleted empty folders on the source drive, leaving you thinking that you've forgotten to move it...
So never again, eh? At the time, pre-launch I've even opted to get an XP-Pro with free upgrade to Vista - but never got the free upgrade because of microsoft's outsourced company was so bad at handling this simple task - admin error and therefore I couldn't get the upgrade, even though I've done everything I've been asked to do - I won't be doing that again...
However SP1 seems to have cleared many a things up, and is running much better...
It's coming up to 2 years for when Vista was first released, and not many x64 apps - I believe Adobe is coming out with 64bit Photoshop soon (I'll be looking forward to that & still waiting for 64bit Premiere Pro)...
However, existing apps and software seem fine - as it can handle 32bit programs very well, unless you've got a really old piece of peripheral or use 16bit programs, that might be a problem...
However, I do have 1 piece of software that doesn't work properly in Vista x64, and I use virtualisation software to run XP-Pro on top of the Vista x64.
Might be useful if you have any problems with old software - try downloading Microsoft's free Virtual PC...
Vista 64
by windmill414 - 9/8/08 7:16 PM In reply to: Vista 64 by xtekmThe only programs That won't run are ALK Copilot laptop for trucks & Dragon Naturally Speaking Ver 9 Or 10. I bought both in preferred.
Version 8 does work though!!!
Works for me
by Whitecougar - 9/13/08 6:30 AM In reply to: Is 64 bit worth it? by webaconsI've been running vista 64 bit since april 08 with very little problems. The main difference between 32 and 64 bit is 64 bit will recognize 4+gbs of ram. 32bit will only recognize approx 3.5gb. I have loaded 32 bit programs with no difficulty but choose to use 64bit when possible. If the pc is 64bit compatible then why not use it...
Well
by metmichallica - 9/14/08 4:59 PM In reply to: Is 64 bit worth it? by webaconsIt's actually the same model of a computer I have, everything runs fine, but you got to be careful with what you put on it and install, because not all programs are compatible with the 64-bit version of windows. If you have older programs I don't think they will work, this computer actually came with a trial version of Norton Internet Security. The trial was actually replaced by Norton 360 which my dad bought the other day and you can use it on 3 computers, which is a good thing.
Mine came with a HPw1907 monitor and I believe it is a 19 inch and a printer, bought at bestbuy. Though they still are selling the same model computer at bestbuy. I believe they are coming with 22-inch monitors.
http://www.bestbuy.com/site/olspage.jsp?skuId=999997100050015&type=product&id=pcmprd97200050015
Stop hating Vista you Maccers
by chastx1981 - 9/15/08 2:09 AM In reply to: Is 64 bit worth it? by webaconsI have been using Vista and Vista x64 since the betas.
THERE ARE NO PROBLEMS
using either edition 32-bit or 64-bit all the software released in the last few years works fine. and if your using something from the stonage upgrade. You cant expect an antique computer to be able to run tommorrows applications. Everyone with an updated system has no problems running vista. Vista x64 is even faster, and more secure with less lockups and bugs as 32-bit vista. it will run all software that works on 32-bit version. i have recommended it to several of my customers and none have complained
i currently use it on 3 different computers
----------------
MAIN: HP Media Center m8307c
CPU: INTEL CORE2QUAD Q6600 2.4GHZ
RAM: 3GB DDR2 PC 5300
HDD: 1TB WD SATA
TV TUNER: FACTORY
DVD: SATA DVDRW, WITH AN ADDITIONAL BLU RAY BURNER
VIDEO: EVGA GEFORCE 8800GTX 768MB GDDR3
SOFTWARE: TO MUCH TO LIST FROM APPS TO GAMES
OS : VISTA ULTIMATE 64-BIT
WIFES CPU:
----------
AMD ATHALON64 X2 6000
4GB DDR2-800MHZ
NVIDIA GEFOCE 8600GS
500GB HDD
2X LITEON DVDRW
NOTEBOOK:
----------
ASUS AMD TURION64 X2
300GB HDD
4GB DDR2 RAM
GET THE POINT IM SURE. NO MATTER WHAT CONFIGURATION VISTA IS GOOD. ONLY MAC LOVERS OR PEOPLE SCARED OF CHANGE WILL SAY ELSEWISE. IF YOU DONT UPGRADE YOUR SOFTWARE AND YOUR TRYING TO RUN SOFTWARE THAT WORKED WITH WINDOWS 95 IT PROBABLY WONT WORK JUST LIKE XP HAD SOME SOFTWARE THAT IT WOULD NOT RUN WHEN IT CAME OUT. TIME CHANGES AND EVOLUTION HAPPENS
AND MACS SUCK - YES MAC LOVERS WE HAVE SOMETHING BETTER THAN IPHOTO ON PCS CALLED GOOGLE PICASA 3
Re: Vista 64 bit
by Kees Bakker - 9/15/08 2:28 AM
In reply to: Stop hating Vista you Maccers by chastx1981
"all the software released in the last few years works fine".
That's simply not true. Dragon Naturally Speaking doesn't as the maker says in http://knowledgebase.nuance.com/view.asp?60VQ=JLJG. They don't even know yet when a compatible version will be released.
Let's say: "most current software works fine, but not all". And, related, "most hardware has compatible drivers, but not all".
Better check before installing this OS.
Kees
gotta love that last paragraph
by innocent_bystander - 9/15/08 4:26 PM In reply to: Stop hating Vista you Maccers by chastx1981Not one single mention of Macs in the entire thread and the suddenly, out of the blue, the blame for all the bad press for Vista is laid at the doorstep of Mac users.
All caps too! Very impressive!
I wonder if the poster was aware that Macs have been 64bit for some considerable time now, so they are not really the ones that are "scared of change"
How did the thread go from being a question about 64bit computers to being a personal review of iPhoto?
Perhaps the problem lies closer to home.
| Forum legend: | |
 |
Locked thread |
 |
Moderator |
 |
CNET staff |
 |
Samsung staff |
 |
Norton Authorized Support team |
 |
AVG staff |
 |
Windows Outreach team |
 |
Dell staff |
 |
Intel staff |
