PDA

View Full Version : Vista 64 vs 32. Why not 64?




jschmidt
Feb 8, 2008, 03:44 PM
So I am super excited that my 8 core 2.8 is arriving on Monday with the 8800 GT card installed. I was able to snag a copy of Vista Ultimate and wanted to try out some gaming. Right now I only have 2 GB of RAM but will be bumping it up to 10 GB in the near future.

My question is this: Why not go Vista 64? Apple says that I should only install 32 but why? Are there advantages to 32 I don't know about or do some things not work right in 64? I am not worried about drivers for my printer, scanner, or anything else because the Windows partition is for gaming only.

Thanks for any insights others might have.



tersono
Feb 8, 2008, 03:46 PM
BootCamp does now support 64-bit Windows, but do bear in mind that there are still a lot of compatibility problems - both software and drivers - which may make Vista 32 a far better idea. For general use, the 32-bit version is faster, too...

jb60606
Feb 8, 2008, 03:47 PM
So I am super excited that my 8 core 2.8 is arriving on Monday with the 8800 GT card installed. I was able to snag a copy of Vista Ultimate and wanted to try out some gaming. Right now I only have 2 GB of RAM but will be bumping it up to 10 GB in the near future.

My question is this: Why not go Vista 64? Apple says that I should only install 32 but why? Are there advantages to 32 I don't know about or do some things not work right in 64? I am not worried about drivers for my printer, scanner, or anything else because the Windows partition is for gaming only.

Thanks for any insights others might have.

actually, I think Vista 64 works in BC now.

SolrFlare
Feb 8, 2008, 04:00 PM
I'm installing 64bit windows on my 8800gt mac pro right now in fact :D Ther eis no reason not to on a mac pro unless you are using 3gb or less ram. If you are, use Windows XP.

Big tip for you though as I discovered this the hard way: If you are installing bootcamp/vista to a dedicated drive in your mac pro, make sure you install that drive in bay 1 or 2. The vista installer did not like it at all in bay 3 or 4. It complained that my bios wouldn't boot to that drive(untrue but whatever).

So, be sure to put your boot vista only drive in bay 1 or 2 and you'll be fine. For good measure I pre-formated the drive as Fat32 using diskutility instead of the bootcamp utility as well.

Everything is going flawless now as we speak.

jschmidt
Feb 8, 2008, 04:12 PM
Maybe I should add that this Windows rig is for gaming only. It's my understanding that Vista 64 would run faster for games vs 32 is there any exception to that? (I'm not interested in XP)

Glad to hear someone else is running this without a hitch. Thanks for the tip about putting windows in Bay 2. I was thinking of reformatting one of my old drives partitioned with a 32GB FAT and the rest of the space as NTFS. I'll put Vista and games on the NTFS and use the FAT to move files between Mac and Windows.

noi375
Feb 8, 2008, 04:19 PM
actually, I think Vista 64 works in BC now.

Assuming you have the later version of Mac Pro that supports it - I don't think the older version of Mac Pro supports 64 bit.

Also, check up on drivers and applications to make sure they work - 64 bit, especially Vista, is quite hit or miss - I know I have to do my research before going Vista 64 because of the support.

JNB
Feb 8, 2008, 04:26 PM
Not a single 64-bit game out there that I know of (and not likely to be for quite some time).

smogsy
Feb 8, 2008, 04:34 PM
halflife 2 (64Bit version)

crysis (Unlimited cores although has 64 bit aspects)

Cromulent
Feb 8, 2008, 04:50 PM
I've got Vista Ultimate 64 bit on my 2006 Mac Pro and it works really well. I'd go for the 64 bit version rather than the 32 bit one any day.

drrich2
Feb 9, 2008, 12:03 AM
Go to Newegg.com, Operating Systems, the Windows VISTA Ultimate 64 OEM version, & read all reviews.

From what people have had to say:

1.) Some love it.

2.) Some hate it.

3.) Some app.s don't work with it - would be nice to see a list.

4.) Sometimes finding drivers for it can be a hassle - and somebody's old scanner didn't work with it.

5.) It can use a larger amount of RAM than the 32 bit version.

6.) It's a memory hog so you NEED quite a bit of RAM.

7.) Conversely, it may not install properly if you've got over 2 gigs RAM at the time. Some needed to install with a system with 2 gigs RAM, then download some sort of patch, then add more RAM.

8.) I thought you needed one of the '08 MacPro's to use the 64 big version of VISTA, but evidently Cromulent's experience is otherwise.

I was browsing Newegg tonight trying to decide on a Windows OS to add to my soon to be shipped MacPro, and that's what I've gleaned from that & a little other looking around.

Richard.

Talcon
Feb 11, 2008, 08:27 PM
Go to Newegg.com, Operating Systems, the Windows VISTA Ultimate 64 OEM version, & read all reviews.

From what people have had to say:

1.) Some love it.

2.) Some hate it.

3.) Some app.s don't work with it - would be nice to see a list.

4.) Sometimes finding drivers for it can be a hassle - and somebody's old scanner didn't work with it.

5.) It can use a larger amount of RAM than the 32 bit version.

6.) It's a memory hog so you NEED quite a bit of RAM.

7.) Conversely, it may not install properly if you've got over 2 gigs RAM at the time. Some needed to install with a system with 2 gigs RAM, then download some sort of patch, then add more RAM.

8.) I thought you needed one of the '08 MacPro's to use the 64 big version of VISTA, but evidently Cromulent's experience is otherwise.

I was browsing Newegg tonight trying to decide on a Windows OS to add to my soon to be shipped MacPro, and that's what I've gleaned from that & a little other looking around.

Richard.

I agree. Some people hate it, some people love it. To me, 64-bit is not worth it because there are still some driver issues out there. But, to his or her own decision.

contoursvt
Feb 12, 2008, 09:09 PM
I dont think Vista is a memory Hog. Superfetch is what uses the memory but that memory is not just gobbled up for nothing. It improves system performance and is instantly available to apps that need them. Its not like the ram is missing.

Anyway the 64bit Vista I run at home makes my system much MUCH more responsive than at work. Granted at home I was running 4GB and at work its 3GB. At home I was running SCSI drives and at work a Raptor 10K. Still it was not even comparable. Not sure if the difference was the 15K SCSI vs the raptor or it was the 64bit OS. Difference was giant for day to day usage.

ceiph
Feb 12, 2008, 09:17 PM
i use vista 64 on my macbook. works perfect with the mac pro drivers (well except video card but that i found my own drivers for)

anyways i went 64 because it was easyer to get ahold of and hl2 can use it... so yeah

it works and with a mac pro i would defiantly use it

sturob
Feb 12, 2008, 09:50 PM
So. . . sounds like I'll try Vista with my own new MP. Once it arrives, that is.

I asked this in another thread, and got some answers, but allow me to ask it again (to another crowd, potentially). Not to hijack the thread, of course, but let's say I do install Vista, and I use the BootCamp drivers. Would it then behoove me to look separately for other drivers (like ForceWare to drive the graphics card) . . . ?

Stuart

ayeying
Feb 14, 2008, 12:09 PM
I use 64 bit windows also. It is, a little bit more memory hog, it is a little slower (depending on apps) but overall, its the future. If you think the future's now, go ahead, if you're not, then don't bother upgrading yet.