Any experience with Vista 64?

[Greenmind]

I have 8GB of memory in my system now (picked up 4x2GB for $30 after MIR over the holidays) and need to upgrade to a 64 bit OS to use it. Work gets me any Microsoft OS I could want for almost nothing, including XP 64 and Vista 64. I was thinking I'd move to Vista 64 so I could get to know it better. (Working with it on my laptop and desktop at work where I do IT isn't enough apparently).

Anyways, does anyone have gaming/web development/photo editing/program development experience while running Vista 64? Are drivers and issue? My system is a Core 2 duo and less than 2 years old. I also like that I can use vista to download movies from my HD camcorder. Having to buy other software that was unreliable or take my camera to work was a PITA.

So yeah, I hope everyone had a great holiday and I hope to see you soon.

[tarmil]

vista 64 is a solid opperating system. I have 6 gigs so i run it as well. But you'll get better game performance out of XP. Here is the catch, even though 64bit vista runs more then 3.6g of memory the game is a 32 bit application and wont utilize it. If you install the OS and pull up task manager you'll see something like this:

Total memory 8gb
Memory used 3.6gb
Available memory 0.06gb

So if you just want a shiny opperating system with all the new bells and whistles i say go vista. If you want to get every bit of performance out of gaming stick with XP. Depending on your chip and video card however you might only get like an extra 5 FPS by going XP. Results may vary. :)

To answer your other question. No drivers are fine for all vista 64 apps that i've run. Including hammer. One thing you might want to be mindful of. Vista and Ventrilo dont always play nice... the work around is to right click ventrilo and choose run as administrator when you open it.

Cheers

[Gisli]

When I built my new computer, I got Vista 64. I've had no problems running Warhammer with it. Effectively, from a user's point of view, I can't tell the difference from Vista 32. It is slightly confusing sometimes to have program files split between the 32 and 64 bit directories, but there is no other difference visible to the user that I can see.

[Chrysanthe]

The only difference I really know about between Vista 32 and 64 is the amount of memory is recognizes. Either way, I'd recommend getting the Vista 64 over XP just for directx 10, not to mention that it recognizes more memory than xp and 32. I'm running XP pro on my gaming rig and wish I could afford to upgrade it to Vista 64. I have Vista 32 on my laptop and I love it.

[Drakhon]

vista 64 is a solid opperating system. I have 6 gigs so i run it as well. But you'll get better game performance out of XP. Here is the catch, even though 64bit vista runs more then 3.6g of memory the game is a 32 bit application and wont utilize it.

True, not directly. However, Vista fills any otherwise unused memory by caching frequently used files through it's SuperFetch component. For instance, when I first log in to my computer, I can bring up the resource monitor and watch it load my data.myp file (among others) into memory. I currently only have 4GB of RAM, so I get relatively little effect from this once I'm actually playing and using the RAM for actual application memory, but the more data that is cached before you need it, the less you'll be impacted by the much longer read times from your hard drive.



If you install the OS and pull up task manager you'll see something like this:

Total memory 8gb
Memory used 3.6gb
Available memory 0.06gb


That's because what's not being used by applications is being used as a file cache. What you actually see is (looking at my laptop right now):

Physical Memory (MB)
Total 2045
Cached 1012
Free 34

So only about 999 MB is actually in use by applications or the OS, but a number of things are cached in case I launch certain applications. The cache has low priority, so if that memory is needed for something else, it can be kicked out.


XP64 has worse driver support than Vista has had for most of it's life. That was the major complaint (and rightfully so) about Vista but those issues have generally been resolved as long as your hardware is fairly recent (the manufacturer has been willing to write new drivers for it).

Vista 64 is the way to go. Plus, Windows 7 is based on Vista and the transition between them will be very easy (most Vista drivers already work in the Windows 7 beta). Interestingly, Windows 7 will actually ship as code version 6.1 where Vista is 6.0 because it helps with application compatibility via OS version checking (the same reason XP is 5.1 over Windows 2000's 5.0).

[Elsebet]

I have Vista Ultimate 64, have had no problems with it on any game. Most common problems are solved by disabling UAC (User Access Control) or running things as administrator.

[Drakhon]

Oh, and for a home computer there is really no need for Ultimate. All you miss out on is Bitlocker (full drive encryption) and being able to Remote Desktop into the machine (the client is present, just not the server), both of which are easily replaceable with free software.

Of course, if you're getting it for free, go with whatever you want.

I also strip down my installations with vLite. Saves disk space, install time and reduces resource usage once you're running, but you have to figure out just what you can remove without hurting your hardware and software needs.

[Gramel]

Unless you have a 64 bit application, (and most people don't), there is no good reason to have a 64 bit operating system. Go with the 32 bit.

[Drakhon]

Unless you have a 64 bit application, (and most people don't), there is no good reason to have a 64 bit operating system. Go with the 32 bit.

Total system RAM that can be accessed is kind of the whole point. Sure, each individual application can't use more than 4GB (other than in the SuperFetch manner I mentioned earlier), but we typically run multiple applications.

I would actually flip your statement around: at this point unless you absolutely need to run some 16-bit application (Vista x64 doesn't support them), there is no good reason not to have the 64-bit version as it runs 32-bit applications just fine. If someone is only purchasing a new OS now and questioning if they should get x64, it is unlikely that they will make another OS purchase any time soon. Why get x86 (32-bit) and not be able to expand their RAM or run 64-bit applications on that machine in the future without having to buy a new OS?

[Thook]

I'm running WAR on Vista64, 8Gb ram... everything is going well and no probs at alll.

I plan to use Windows 2008 Server On my next install to ... Using it at work as a workstation and it owns! ;)

[Monstein]

I'm running Vista 64 also, and alot of ram not going to say how much proble get told I don't need that much. I have yet to lag any where near where I was with 32 bit and max ram.

[Drakhon]

You can also try the Windows 7 Beta. I ran WAR for a bit on that and it seemed fine.

[Lustia]

File another under the "Running Vista 64 and love it". I have a Core2Quad with 4GB of RAM. Never had any problems yet. I just did a clean reinstall after getting a new hard drive and everything reloaded up smoothly. No driver problems with anything relatively recent.
Ventrilo is probably the most difficult to get running, but I'd say even that is a 15 min max just until you figure it out.
Anyways, it has my recommendation.

[Fhuul]

No issues with Vista 64 here. Aside from having to run Vent as admin and some other minor sound gotchya's I've been running as good as XP 64.

Tried Windows 7, currently my Razer mouse software doesn't work on it so it's a no go for me.