Just curious will a 64bit version of vista run in parallels, and would there be any benefit of using the 64bit version over the 32bit 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.
Vista 64 bit vs 32 bit
- Thread starter MacDonaldsd
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I would also like to know this as well
but running vista in bootcamp
im leaning towards the 64 bit version (C2D in MBP is 64 bit right)
are there driver issues with the 64 bit ?
Cheers
but running vista in bootcamp
im leaning towards the 64 bit version (C2D in MBP is 64 bit right)
are there driver issues with the 64 bit ?
Cheers
Might just be my experience... but I had the opportunity thanks to a friend to try out both 64 and 32 bit versions on my iMac C2D 20". Truthfully the 64 bit system ran slow and laggy for me. Not sure why since it's supposed to be faster. However, I've heard that it's due to the chipset's inability to address 64 bits of memory, etc. But the 32 bit final version of Vista Ultimate that I'm running now runs great! A bit of a memory hog on start up, but still runs FSX and Rayman Raving Rabbids with great frame rates.
princealfie
macrumors 68030
thejadedmonkey
macrumors G3
The MacBook can't use over 3 gigs of RAM, and Vista 32bit can use a max of 4 gigs, so I don't think it makes much of a difference.. right?
WildPalms
macrumors 6502a
It's not supposed to be faster at all. 64bit means that when mathematical operations are preformed twice the acuracy can be obtained. If you compile your code very well and use that to pack two 32 bit numbers into one 64 bit instruction then it can go "faster" but you're effectively paralell processing then.
Especially if, as you say, the FSB is only 32 bit because it will be burning CPU cycles disassembling the 64 bit output into 32 bit input to the other busses.
Chris
dukebound85
macrumors Core
Just curious how does vista perform compared to xp? faster slower? for instance im debating putting it on my mb 2ghz cd 1.5gb ram
It is rather a matter of perspective.
In XP vs. Vista, Vista will automatically pre-cache commonly used applications into memory to improve loading times giving near instant access to things like Internet Explorer, Windows Mail and the like.
Or, atleast that is what Microsoft has to say about why Vista takes so many more resources than XP. In their eyes, the resources issue is a misrepresentation of the apps being pre-cached and then cleared out when other programs need the pre-cached space.
In truth, some apps can load faster on the same hardware after a few tries. Boot time will generally be longer on the same hardware and many resource intensive apps will take longer to load.
In XP vs. Vista, Vista will automatically pre-cache commonly used applications into memory to improve loading times giving near instant access to things like Internet Explorer, Windows Mail and the like.
Or, atleast that is what Microsoft has to say about why Vista takes so many more resources than XP. In their eyes, the resources issue is a misrepresentation of the apps being pre-cached and then cleared out when other programs need the pre-cached space.
In truth, some apps can load faster on the same hardware after a few tries. Boot time will generally be longer on the same hardware and many resource intensive apps will take longer to load.