Vista x64 or x86

Discussion in 'MacBook Pro' started by wildwobby, Dec 31, 2007.

  1. wildwobby macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 3, 2007
    #1
    I know the macBook Pro has a 64 bit processor, but on apples website for leopard bootcamp it says you can install any 32 bit OS. But i'm curious if x64 would work anyways? Will it?
     
  2. Eidorian macrumors Penryn

    Eidorian

    Joined:
    Mar 23, 2005
    Location:
    Indianapolis
  3. Killyp macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #3
    It won't because the MacBook Pro Windows drivers are 32 bit only...
     
  4. brock2621 macrumors 6502a

    brock2621

    Joined:
    Jun 8, 2007
    Location:
    Kentucky
    #4
    are there any plans to update this to support 64-bit? Also, is parallels also restricted to 32?
     
  5. Killyp macrumors 68040

    Killyp

    Joined:
    Jun 14, 2006
    #5
    I don't know. There may well be...

    I don't know if you can use 64 bit Windows in Parallels either, but ultimately it won't make any difference to the performance. It'll just make it more difficult to use...
     
  6. heatmiser macrumors 68020

    Joined:
    Dec 6, 2007
    #6
    The only disadvantage to 32 bit is that you're limited to 3gb of ram with it...
     
  7. tersono macrumors 68000

    tersono

    Joined:
    Jan 18, 2005
    Location:
    UK
    #7
    Currrent drivers are 32-bit, but frankly the 64-bit version of Vista doesn't make much sense anyhow - a lot of software and drivers are broken AAAAAND it's slower in day-to-day use.
     
  8. synth3tik macrumors 68040

    synth3tik

    Joined:
    Oct 11, 2006
    Location:
    Minneapolis, MN
    #8
    Besides for the MBP drivers only being 32bit. A vast majority of software for Vista does not support 64bit.
     
  9. aethelbert macrumors 601

    Joined:
    Jun 1, 2007
    Location:
    Chicago, IL, USA
    #9
    As others have stated, you're best sticking with x86. It will still suck (as it is Vista...) but not as much as x64. There's not much that works with 64 bit Windows these days, anyway.
     
  10. tmoney468 macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Mar 13, 2007
    #10
    What are you saying, that the majority of programs aren't written in 64-bit, or that the majority of programs don't run on the 64-bit version of Vista?

    Vista x64 doesn't have any problems running 32-bit apps...as others have said, the only benefit today would be to be able to use 4GB+ of ram.
     
  11. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #11
    You can run 32-bit software in 64-bit windows.. its just that the drivers have an issue. Only 64-bit drivers can be installed in 64-bit OS. 32-bit cannot be installed at all.
     
  12. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #12
    False. Please stop spreading FUD.

    Apple is about the only major company that doesn't provide 64-bit drivers.

    Most companies now support 64-bit drivers wise. You typically run into problems with the odd ball old printer.

    Software isn't slowed down, I don't know where you heard this. It's also not any more slower than a 32-bit OS.

    Most games work on 64-bit, pretty much all professional software (like 3D Studio Max, Auto CAD, ect) are available in 64-bit, which makes it faster than their 32-bit counter part. There 32-bit counter-parts of the same version also work on a 64-bit OS.

    Much of the negative stigma that comes from 64-bit versions of Windows dates back to 2003 when Windows XP Pro 64-bit was released and people had difficulties downloading drivers. It's been 4 years and the industry is headed towards 64-bit. There were talks of MS releasing the next version of Windows as 64-bit only, and whether you like it or not, MS is arguably the main leader that sets industry standards.

    Perhaps you get the thought that 64-bit is slower from the old version of Windows XP 64-bit for Itanium processors. Those processors were highly inefficient and had difficulties in processing 32-bit code. AMD and Intel has since fixed that.
     
  13. Weezy F Baby macrumors member

    Joined:
    Nov 17, 2007
  14. kaiwai macrumors 6502a

    kaiwai

    Joined:
    Oct 21, 2007
    Location:
    Christchurch
    #14
    1) Only 64bit applications can access more than 4GB of memory; either that, or 32bit operating system with PAE enabled along with applications and drivers which are written for PAE.

    2) Alot of applications make use of drivers that need to be 64bit, take iTunes for example, which doesn't run in 64bit mode, nor does the minidisc software either.

    3) Who ever raised the 3GB, bull rot. The issue regarding 3GB is the chipset limitation - also, the issue is 4GB combined memory, when Windows looks at the memory, it combines video memory and ram together. In the case of a MacBook, its a non-issue as the graphics memory and RAM are one in the same.

    4) There have been many benchmarks already, so who ever is screaming fud whilst foaming at the mouth needs to look at the benchmarks. There is little advantage above greater memory addressing; even then, with the extra weight, you need more memory to run it.
     
  15. The Flashing Fi macrumors 6502a

    Joined:
    Sep 23, 2007
    #15
    Re-read my post and maybe you'll understand what I said.

    One of the guys said that many applications don't run on Windows 64-bit as well as there being a lot of incompatability. That is BS. He was doing nothing but regurgitating what other Apple fanboys who have used Windows once in their life had said to him, as well as spreading generalizations that existed four years ago. It was nothing but FUD.

    Also, tests show that there is little to no difference in performance in a 32-bit application running on Windows XP 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit.
     
  16. djejrejk macrumors 6502a

    djejrejk

    Joined:
    Jan 3, 2007
    Location:
    Uhh...
    #16
    I found it to be much more reliable than XP Pro.. and much faster. It was very noticeable to me.
     
  17. ayeying macrumors 601

    ayeying

    Joined:
    Dec 5, 2007
    Location:
    Yay Area, CA
    #17
    The 3GB limit is only a limit if its hardware based. Newer chipsets don't have this limitation. Newer SR models can support up to 8GB. For example, my desktop supports 8GB but I have 4GB currently installed. Due to my 32-bit OS (windows vista), I can't access more then 3.25GB.

    For the MacBook, the newer SR models can support upto 4GB if used with x64 OS and not 32-bit. If its 32-bit, it'll only read 3.3GB more or less. If tis x64, it'll read and use the full 4GB.
     

Share This Page