If so, how's it going? Do you like it more than the 32-bit version? Are you experiencing many driver problems or program incompatibility issues? Thanks in advance for sharing your experiences!
I'm running 64 bit Vista Ultimate. I've only had a few program incompatibility issues. Those have typically been with free versions of utilities. Other than utilities, any programs that don't run in 64 bit mode, automatically run in 32 bit mode. I haven't had any driver problems at all. I can't really say that I've gotten any benefit out of running the 64 bit edition. But, as people buy new machines, I think that it will become more standard, which will cause more software manufacturers to write programs that take advantage of the 64 bit architecture.
I also have Vista Ultimate, but when I initially installed it some time ago, I opted to use the 32-bit version. However, I recently read an article on TomsHardware.com which concluded that the 8GB of memory that 64-bit processing can utilize -- as compared with the 4GB maximum with 32-bit -- can substantially improve a computer's speed and performance by obviating the need to use the virtual memory swap file on the hard drive. Given that DDR-2 800 is dirt cheap these days, I've been thinking about doing a re-install to switch operating systems.
It's amazing what a techno-geek you've become Bob. Two years ago you were asking how to get whiteout off your screen and now you're overclocking, water cooling and swapping operating systems like they were condoms. How long does your sabbatical last?
I too have been considering going from 4GB to 8GB due to the low cost. I've also been considering a video card upgrade from an nVidia 8600GT 512MB to an nVidia 8800GTS 512MB even though I keep telling myself that I really don't need it. When I first got my machine, I had a problem with it freezing from time to time. After turning Aero off, that problem went away. The Windows Experience Index shows my "Graphics: Desktop performance for Windows Aero" score is the lowest subscore for my machine by quite a bit. Although I don't miss Aero, I would like to turn it back on.
Bill, I'm sure that the 8800 GTS's are great video cards, but they're definitely pricey. The video card I'm using now -- a SAPPHIRE Radeon X1950PRO (256MB GDDR3 256-bit) -- only cost me $169, and it gives me a Windows Aero score of 59 and a Gaming Graphics score of 58 (although I don't game). I think that its use of 256-bit processing (rather than 128-bit) is what accounts for its good performance. . [sp] Edited by - bob on 2/23/2008 11:56:41 PM
Currently Ive been running Vista Ultimate 64bit for about 9 months now and I have no complaints, but Im also running 4gigs of memory with it which makes a huge difference as well.In regards to upgrading your video card, unless your not happy with your 8600's performance when playing games, dont upgrade as of yet, just to see what happens with the 9 series cards, like the 9600 just came out and it seems decent. As for myself im running a 7900 which is fine with me, luckily im not a hardcore gamer. As my friend showed me his 8800GTS running crysis, and man what a difference, almost made me want to upgrade.
Today, I decided to take the advice of Tom's Hardware and picked up another 4GB of ram for $90. For now, I'm going to hold off on the video card upgrade. I started hearing a vibrating hum from my machine late last week, which I feared was coming from one of the hard drives. It turned out that the noise was coming from the fan on my video card. My PC manufacturer is swapping it out under warranty. Since I've had some other problems with that card (I had to switch to VGA when I started having DVI problems after a driver update). I want to see how the new card performs before upgrading.
So far, I can't say that it's made much of a difference. However, while trying to investigate why my Vista Experience Index was still a 5.0 for memory, I discovered that one of the original memory boards was only running at 333MHz (PC2-5300) instead of 400MHz (PC2-6400). So, I ended up ordering a second pair of the G.Skill boards. I should be getting them on Monday. Edited by - Bill on 3/1/2008 8:49:22 PM
That would explain a lot. My understanding is that all your RAM will default to the lowest speed of any of the modules -- so that, if one of them is running at 333MHz, they all are. . [sp] Edited by - bob on 3/1/2008 8:27:10 PM
I'm running a few 64-bit servers. I don't have any incompatibility issues. They are the only ones that will address the 8GB of RAM I have in them. They will go up to 32GB. The problem you run into with 32-bit apps is they are written to only be able to address up to 4GB, or in some cases, 2GB, of memory, maximum. Others can only ever access a single processor, ever. So having multiple processors and oodles of RAM is just a waste.
Some applications, like SQL Server, can be told to reserve a certain amount of RAM for themselves, and how many processors to use, but many are the applications that are not designed to be aware of such distinctions. Virtualization platforms such as VMWare and the soon to hit manufacturing Windows Server 2008 and Citrix Server can be tweaked somewhat to be more cognizant of their resource usage, but ... dude, I'm half a bottle of wine in and this is starting to feel like work.
So far, I can't say that there has been any significant improvement. However, I really haven't been running too many memory intensive applications. When I do, I will report if there is an improvement.
Posted - Feb 23 2008 : 3:38PM
