Vista 64Bit vs. 32Bit

[softwork]

I intend to install vista just for gaming. as far as i know is windows xp 64 very badly supported (linux x64 is much much better). otherwise Crytek says its game Crysis is 64 bit dual core optimized. so what do you think about and what is your experience...

would be great if someone could post "real" experience

 

[t2t2t]

I intend to install vista just for gaming.

Ok... Here's a shotgun and a manual for it, also a book "How to make an efficient suicide".

 

[mattura]

Unless you really like Vista's Mahjong etc, I'd stick to XP.
Chances are you won't be able to use that 64 bit power in most games anyway. Probably behind the scenes, the 32 bit emulator will be chugging away.
Sorry I have no 'real experience' of 64bit Crysis, but I heard about the farce of 64 bit computing a little while ago, and am not sure that things have moved on very far yet. I use 32bit XP and 64bit linux. No complaints.

 

[bigmanbfa2]

I intend to install vista just for gaming. as far as i know is windows xp 64 very badly supported (linux x64 is much much better).

First off, if you are looking to do hardcore gaming in vista, you might as well give up now. Unless you have a really good computer, one that can take a 1gig memory loss just for bootup and some DX10 enabled cards, its not worth it, just still with XP for gaming.

Also, Linux x64 is NOT better for support or drivers, infact is is far worse in the ability to aquire the x64 drivers and getting things like firefox x64 to support flash. But, on the flipside, vista's built-in MS drivers for x64 stuff SUCK.

would be great if someone could post "real" experience

I used to run both KUbuntu x64 and Vista Ultimate x64 and if I HAD to choose one, it would be vista for the built-in support and at least some readyness for the 64-bit applications, but overall, I choose XP 32-bit as for right now, 64-bit applications are not hitting the market as planned, nor are they utilizing multi-core processors as efficiently as could be.

 

[mattura]

Also, Linux x64 is NOT better for support or drivers, infact is is far worse in the ability to aquire the x64 drivers and getting things like firefox x64 to support flash. But, on the flipside, vista's built-in MS drivers for x64 stuff SUCK.

Yep, I said "no complaints", but I forgot this...
However, I believe Iceweasel (a 64bit implementation of firefox) does support flash.

 

[panop]

If you are able to get yourself a 64-bit system with 2GB of RAM, then Vista is actually better than XP for gaming. According to tests, you can get about a 50% better frame rate with Vista, 2GB RAM, and a 64-bit processor than you can with XP.

 

[bigmanbfa2]

Yep, I said "no complaints", but I forgot this...
However, I believe Iceweasel (a 64bit implementation of firefox) does support flash.

really? I was unaware of that. Thanks for the info. Do you know if it is native 64-bit or is it a 32-bit emulation? I remember doing the 'hack' to get the 64-bit firefox to use flash, but it was not native at all.

If you are able to get yourself a 64-bit system with 2GB of RAM, then Vista is actually better than XP for gaming. According to tests, you can get about a 50% better frame rate with Vista, 2GB RAM, and a 64-bit processor than you can with XP.

whoever told you that, needs a good smacking. =)

look
here
here
and
here

 

[softwork]

Also, Linux x64 is NOT better for support or drivers, infact is is far worse in the ability to aquire the x64 drivers and getting things like firefox x64 to support flash. But, on the flipside, vista's built-in MS drivers for x64 stuff SUCK.

Sorry, but that is quite not true ! I am using Suse, Debian and Ubuntu, whereas Suse is x64. What true is, that there is no real sun java 64bit plugin for firefox, thats a shame for sun, they planning it for 4 years and it is intended with JRE 1.7.

For most other plugins it is possible to use nspluginwrapper (like Adobe Flash) which works as a layer for other system architectures.

nspluginwrapper makes it possible to use Netscape 4 compatible plugins compiled for i386 into Mozilla for another architecture, e.g. x86_64.

or like me, simply install the 32bit firefox version to use 32bit java and flash

 

[QuwenQ]

I have a feeling this is going to turn into a Vista-bashing and What-Version-Of-Linux-Is-Best board.

 

[Sharky]

Well I have Vista Business 64-bit (free from university ) and it works lovely. Core2Duo 2ghz, 2gb RAM, GeForce 8600GT. So not top of the range, but not slow either, and I can't say I've found Vista to be slow. I remember running a benchmark on here under both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and the 64-bit one was faster.

Don't care about all the digital rights crap... MP3 audio doesn't have DRM, and if I bought a DVD, I'd have the DVD anyway. And I think Slysoft AnyDVD works in Vista anyway, to remove all the protections, and allow skipping the annoying "Don't copy this DVD" crap. Doesn't all that stuff go against Fair Use anyway? Creating a back up of the disc...

The only game I actually know about with a 64-bit version is UT2004, and I think that was made by AMD, but don't quote me on that!

Vista is fine for a gaming machine, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Been happily using it for quite a few months now, when I built this computer. It's just a shame my laptop (with a GeForce4 Go 440) isn't good enough to run it!

 

[softwork]

Well I have Vista Business 64-bit (free from university ) and it works lovely. Core2Duo 2ghz, 2gb RAM, GeForce 8600GT. So not top of the range, but not slow either, and I can't say I've found Vista to be slow. I remember running a benchmark on here under both 32-bit and 64-bit Vista, and the 64-bit one was faster.

Don't care about all the digital rights crap... MP3 audio doesn't have DRM, and if I bought a DVD, I'd have the DVD anyway. And I think Slysoft AnyDVD works in Vista anyway, to remove all the protections, and allow skipping the annoying "Don't copy this DVD" crap. Doesn't all that stuff go against Fair Use anyway? Creating a back up of the disc...

The only game I actually know about with a 64-bit version is UT2004, and I think that was made by AMD, but don't quote me on that!

Vista is fine for a gaming machine, and don't let anyone tell you otherwise. Been happily using it for quite a few months now, when I built this computer. It's just a shame my laptop (with a GeForce4 Go 440) isn't good enough to run it!

thanks for your experience. more like this...

 

[JustBringIt]

While i dont run 64-bit, i do run Vista and i have yet to have a problem running ANY games including Crysis

 

[t2t2t]

While i dont run 64-bit, i do run Vista and i have yet to have a problem running ANY games including Crysis

Set Crysis graphics settings to MAX and then talk

 

[Spartan Erik]

http://techgage.com/article/windows_vista_gaming_performance_reports

Get your info from a real source; they have benchmark tests for many games comparing XP to Vista.

"In the end, if you are making the move to Vista and are a gamer, you may as well prepare to partition your hard drive to dual boot. You are not going to want to go through the hassle of making your games run smooth in Vista, or go through the trouble of tweaking to make it happen. Hopefully within the next two months, NVIDIAs drivers will be much more refined and -all- games should run as they do on XP, or at least close to it."

Oh and XP totally destroys Vista; CNET's news.com had an article about how Vista was 50-100% slower than XP in general, and that with the SP3 release for XP, performance will increase 10%. However, the SP1 release for Vista will only improve performance by 2%.

 

[Sup3rkirby]

Now, I'm no guru in the whole situation, but I have yet to see a single problem with Vista and gaming. I realize there are problems out there that I have no come across, but heck, there are problems in XP too.

Now, if the game's requirements allow this, running a game in XP would be better simply because of the OS itself. But the fact of the matter is new PCs come with tricked out systems(for the most part) and these systems are much better than the old ones that were sold with XP on them. What I'm getting at is I had a great XP PC but it had 512 RAM(didn't need much like vista). I've upgraded to 1 GB and the graphics card is set at 512 MB and it has an AMD Althon 64 processor 3400+. Just recently bought a new computer with Vista(32 bit). 2 GB RAM, 895 MB video memory(ATI Radeon X1250), AMD Althon 64 X2 Processor 4400+. All default. What is the point of all this? Computer with Vista have better hardware, mainly because vista needs more resources. So if I were to put XP on that new PC, gosh, I'd have one beastly PC. But just comparing a standard XP computer to a standard Vista computer, well the Vista one would be better.


And fankly, a note to all, why sit here and talk about using XP instead of Vista. MS controls it all. They are relatively soon going to stop Windows Updates for XP and discontinue support of it. Just like the day Vista came out, all commercial PCs had Vista as the default OS. We are either going to use Vista, Linux, buy a mac or get an illegal torrent of XP(unless you stashed a copy that you bought).