I just purchased a new macbook. I was wondering if i should get 32-bit or 64-bit vista (they cost the same from newegg.com).
PS: im getting the OEM version
PS: im getting the OEM version
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
32 or 64?
- Thread starter tallestof4
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
The restore CD for the MacBook only includes drivers for the 32-bit version of Windows Vista.
If you wish to install the 64-bit version, you would need to do a Google search for a site to download the drivers that come on the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro restore CDs (which include both 32-bit and 64-bit).
As I have a MacBook Pro, I bought the 64-bit version of Vista (though, at the moment, I am using Windows XP 32-bit since I don't need Vista at the moment).
As to driver and application support, it's quite good under Vista 64-bit (and far, far better then Windows XP 64-bit, which Apple does not include support for, period). If you mostly run 32-bit applications, you will likely see better performance from Vista-32.
If you wish to install the 64-bit version, you would need to do a Google search for a site to download the drivers that come on the Mac Pro and MacBook Pro restore CDs (which include both 32-bit and 64-bit).
As I have a MacBook Pro, I bought the 64-bit version of Vista (though, at the moment, I am using Windows XP 32-bit since I don't need Vista at the moment).
As to driver and application support, it's quite good under Vista 64-bit (and far, far better then Windows XP 64-bit, which Apple does not include support for, period). If you mostly run 32-bit applications, you will likely see better performance from Vista-32.
So what your saying is that for the average user, go for 32bit? What is the difference in performance. Did i mention that they are the same price at newegg!?
The biggest advantage Vista x64 offers right now is access to the full 4GB of RAM in Windows (when run via Boot Camp and assuming you have 4GB installed on your MacBook) as opposed to the 2-3.5GB Vista x32 does.
There have been reported issues with some 32-bit applications, drivers, codecs and such under 64-bit Windows. A number of forum members use Vista x64 and report no issues, while others have had some problems.
Honestly, I think you will be fine with 32-bit Vista.
There have been reported issues with some 32-bit applications, drivers, codecs and such under 64-bit Windows. A number of forum members use Vista x64 and report no issues, while others have had some problems.
Honestly, I think you will be fine with 32-bit Vista.
Aye, unless you have over 2GB of RAM, might as well stick with Vista 32. (shame you have to buy the 64 version separately, or that there are even two separate versions, but such is life)
If You will be operating in Vista for a decent amount of time (say 50% or more) you might as well get a Win box which will atleast have the support of the manufactuer to provide decent 64 bit drivers.
If you will hop in and out for gaming and whatnot (like myself) , 32-bit will suffice.
Yes. I was running Vista 64 on my MBP with 2 GB of RAM, and it ran fine. Then I got the 4 GB (it's so cheap!) and wow. Big difference. Do yourself a favor and max out your RAM.
Vista 64 is awesome by the way.
I'm running Vista x64 on my MBP also with 4GB. I can tell a HUGE different from 2GB to 4GB in stability and performance, but beyond that, i can't tell much difference.
OEM license details
If you put the OEM version on your Mac it will violate Microsoft's License Agreement.
Retrieved in May, 2008, found on the OEM Partner Center website (requires a free account to view):
http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=563841
"Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being resold to another party."
"Use of OEM System Builder software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. The software is intended for preinstallation on a new personal computer for resale."
Also, "OEM System Builder Software
Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party ...
Cannot be transferred from the PC on which it is preinstalled ...
Must be preinstalled onto a new PC using the OPK."
"If you are distributing the PCs within your organization, you can't grant the end user license terms to yourself."
Emphasis is mine.
If you put the OEM version on your Mac it will violate Microsoft's License Agreement.
Retrieved in May, 2008, found on the OEM Partner Center website (requires a free account to view):
http://oem.microsoft.com/script/contentPage.aspx?pageid=563841
"Microsoft retail software licenses are the appropriate licenses for the do-it-yourself market. OEM System Builder software is not intended for this use, unless the PC that is assembled is being resold to another party."
"Use of OEM System Builder software is subject to the terms of the Microsoft OEM System Builder License. The software is intended for preinstallation on a new personal computer for resale."
Also, "OEM System Builder Software
Must be preinstalled on a PC and sold to another unrelated party ...
Cannot be transferred from the PC on which it is preinstalled ...
Must be preinstalled onto a new PC using the OPK."
"If you are distributing the PCs within your organization, you can't grant the end user license terms to yourself."
Emphasis is mine.
You really seem to enjoy helping remind us all of Microsoft's EULA. The simple fact of the matter is that M$ should be happy that these people are buying ANY copy of Windows to run as a secondary operating system on their Macs. Microsoft makes it more difficult to install and run Vista with a legitimate license than a stolen copy from Bittorrent, so the fact that these people are paying money to run it should be more than enough.
Please get another hobby. We all know what the "restrictions" on OEM copies are, and as far as I'm concerned the OEM versions are just gifts to the tech "elite" to keep them appeased. M$ is still making a bundle.
I could say the same thing about buying OSX and putting it on my hackintosh. Apple should be happy that I love their software.
Most people have no idea what the restrictions on OEM copies are. It doesn't help that Microsoft's license language is so ambiguous. Your concerns have nothing to do with the actual license agreement. I'm just educating people, you can violate the license if you want, I don't care.
Thanks for the lecture daddy. I love my OEM OEM OEM Vista 32 bit on my Macbook using bootcamp. Please don't tell MS, daddy.
I don't see the justification from microsoft to charge $100-$150 more for an retail package if all they include is a nicer box.
I thought that at one point, they wouldn't provide free tech support for OEM installs. (i.e. the user would have to talk to whoever built their PC for support) Not sure if that's still the case, but it used to be more than just the box as the difference.
That is still technically the case. However I needed support and I called them and they helped me plus gave me another serial number because I needed to download it for Parallels.
I'd say go with Vista 32 bit unless you plan to buy and move to an MBP or a Mac Pro in the next one year and would like to install Vista on it. Regardless of the amount of physical RAM installed, Windows 32 bit normally allows only 2GB for each application you run. So it's not like you're going to get a big performance boost by installing more RAM for Windows 32 bit. Since the MacBook is limited in terms of the amount of memory you can upgrade to, you may not realize the full value of Vista 64 unless you:
1. have probably 8GB or more of RAM (not a hard figure)
2. run massive applications on Windows that need more than 2GB of RAM
As others have stated, availability of drivers is also an issue for Vista 64 bit.
1. have probably 8GB or more of RAM (not a hard figure)
2. run massive applications on Windows that need more than 2GB of RAM
As others have stated, availability of drivers is also an issue for Vista 64 bit.
The availability of drivers for Vista 64 is only a problem if you have a post-2008 Mac, and it's only because Apple is being incredibly lazy about it. 99% of anything made in the past 3+ years has Vista 64 drivers. XP 64 was the OS that was lacking driver support.
If you need 64-bit Adobe CS4 (only will be available in Vista), then you must go 64 and get more RAM.
Other than 64-bit apps..."most users" will get the benefit from expandability to over 4GB at least, if not all those other technical performance increases. One of the factors that separate Vista from all previous 64-bit systems, is Windows SuperFetch...and in some cases in conjunction with sleep mode.
What most people CAN benefit from is the multitasking performance boost given by Vista with more RAM. Maybe some people will upgrade later on when they have more money and RAM is less expensive than dirt. And the default S3 sleep mode (if capable on a Mac) means people save time when their computers are switched on and ready in 5 seconds (with everything SuperFetched).
Even the Vista Team says this...
“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.... PC Accelerators built into Windows Vista, such as Windows SuperFetch, improve performance by keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its job more efficiently. "
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx
Understanding how SuperFetch uses RAM to enhance system performance…
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=735
Windows Vista - SuperFetch & ReadyBoost
http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/29/windows-vista-superfetch-readyboost.aspx
But given all this, I'm not sure how "economical" it is to go 64-bit on a Mac. I imagine it's a lot cheaper go 64-bit with all the benefits from hardware on a PC. You'll have to decide for yourself.
Other than 64-bit apps..."most users" will get the benefit from expandability to over 4GB at least, if not all those other technical performance increases. One of the factors that separate Vista from all previous 64-bit systems, is Windows SuperFetch...and in some cases in conjunction with sleep mode.
What most people CAN benefit from is the multitasking performance boost given by Vista with more RAM. Maybe some people will upgrade later on when they have more money and RAM is less expensive than dirt. And the default S3 sleep mode (if capable on a Mac) means people save time when their computers are switched on and ready in 5 seconds (with everything SuperFetched).
Even the Vista Team says this...
“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.... PC Accelerators built into Windows Vista, such as Windows SuperFetch, improve performance by keeping commonly used programs in memory, even when the program is closed. More memory capacity on 64-bit PCs allows SuperFetch to do its job more efficiently. "
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/windowsvista/archive/2008/07/30/windows-vista-64-bit-today.aspx
Understanding how SuperFetch uses RAM to enhance system performance…
http://blogs.techrepublic.com.com/window-on-windows/?p=735
Windows Vista - SuperFetch & ReadyBoost
http://blogs.technet.com/askperf/archive/2007/03/29/windows-vista-superfetch-readyboost.aspx
But given all this, I'm not sure how "economical" it is to go 64-bit on a Mac. I imagine it's a lot cheaper go 64-bit with all the benefits from hardware on a PC. You'll have to decide for yourself.
It's volume licensing that makes it cheaper. Here, check this out...
Vista - a $6 Billion Dollars Operating System
http://news.softpedia.com/news/Vista-a-6-Billion-Dollars-Operating-System-44096.shtml
I don't really know what the markup of it is but let's assume that they make $100 off each license on average (which is a conservative estimate wouldn't you say?).
If my math is correct, that's $18 billion dollars as of the last public claim of 180 million copies sold.
Microsoft: 180 million Vista licenses now sold
http://arstechnica.com/journals/mic...ater-180-million-vista-licenses-sold-in-total
If my math is correct again...that's TRIPLE the initial costs!
Of course they likely spent a little more after-market like for Jerry Seinfeld and stuff like that but I don't think its anywhere near $12 billion dollars.