[Banxafe]

i'm going to buy a computer with 4GB of ram so it needs a 64-bit version of windows vista. But i want to know what are the differences between the 64-bit and the 32-bit version of vista. for example: can you run the same program form the 32-bit version on the 64-bit version?
pls help me out =)

[faizankhan666]

It does not effect any programs...difference is just in Graphics.

[Orumph]

can you run the same program form the 32-bit version on the 64-bit version

Most 32-bit apps will work on a 64-bit OS, There are some that may have problems, few I beleive, but most should work fine. I only found one program I use that didn't work in 64-bit vista, but works fine in 32-bit. I like the program so I use 32-bit, need larger HD's to dual boot both.

64-bit is the way to go, but you can never tell what software will and won't have problems till you try it. If you are in doubt and can aford it, get Ultimate Retial, you get both 32-bit and 64-bit versions.

[rasmasyean]

It’s mega-fast with 64-bit apps as well as lets you upgrade > 4GB TOTAL RAM (system RAM + graphics card + other devices). 64-bit also requires “MS approved” (a.k.a. digitally signed) drivers so this “might” help with hardware compatibility, etc. This is MS’s way of trying to get everyone to “move on” if they are able to.

But if you have old programs, they might not work (esp. with 64-bit version). Google “Vista compatibility list”. Knowing a bit about computers helps getting the old problematic ones to work (Internet has a lot of solutions that smart people share).

Vista uses extra RAM to store commonly used files in a new activity known as “disk caching”. The computer uses artificial intelligence to determine which files will be used most and copies it to RAM (where it is much faster than accessing your hard disk). This includes components of the programs you use on a regular basis. When you need more RAM for programs you launch, etc. the computer purges the “least likely used” files from RAM to make room for the new program. That’s why if you look at the performance monitor, Vista always has near zero “free” RAM. So in theory, the more RAM (for disk cache) you have, the faster your computer will operate. This can also be augmented (to a lesser effect) with a flash drive/card with a technology called ReadyBoost. Just stick it in and select “Speed up my system” and leave it there.
http://www.anandtech.com/systems/sho...spx?i=2917&p=6

Since RAM is much faster than the HDD, you can reap some major benefits here. Of course whether most of your stuff is cached properly will depend on whether the AI correctly predicts your usage pattern. But, assuming you use pretty much the same things, the AI would have little trouble and cache most of the frequently used files. You can help this with adding more RAM allowing more and more cache to be “correct” because it gives the AI more room to store your files (at some point it goes up to the ones that use “on-occasion” even) . An added little benefit perhaps, is that it might not even have to swap stuff that much when you turn it on the next day from S3 sleep (if you have different usage patterns within the week, etc.).
If you look at this from the future perspective as well, the more new resource intensive programs you run, the more it will take up both user RAM and cache RAM. So you will want to upgrade > 4GB to make your machine go fast again. Maybe next year you will use 3GB for applications and in 32-bit, you will only have 0.2GB RAM left for cache. Not that good.

Also, since S3 sleep is built-into Vista and is such an attractive feature, you might end up just leaving all your 30+ windows open eventually and never log-off so it doesn’t have to take time to re-load/launch all your apps as well as already have your cache pre-loaded. I think most people would want to use S3 considering that turning on the computer takes 5 seconds and you will be back exactly at the point you shut it off. And it uses like 2 watts or something only I think.

[davehc]

I dual boot with 64 bit and 32 bit Vista. although they are on the same DVD, you will only be able to access the one you have paid to lease.
I run 39 32 bit programs, which I migrated from XP, on both OS's. All are running 100%. I only needed to apply the "compatibilty" function to 2 of the programs in Vista 64 bit.
performance wise, you would get the best return from finding tru 64 bit programs. 32 bit, for the most part, show little speed difference from being used in a 32 bit environment. Some can, in fact, even run a little slower. But 64 bit architecture still pages "double words", even when using a 32 bit program, so it is possible to squeeze a little more out of it.
64 bit is certainly not confined to graphics, although that would probably show the better increase in speed.
Regarding you ram increase, A 32-bit operating system can only properly address exactly four gigs, which must be shared between kernel and processes as well as holding further virtual memory addressing. Because of that, 32 bit users can never see the full 4GB of memory - it will always be approximately 3.2GB or less. But, before you proceed, I think you would notice a good increase in speed with the extar ram in the 32 bit Vista.
It is easy to overide the "digitally signed" restriction in the 64 bit, so that is not really a consideration.
Disk caching, that is Superfetch and Readyboost, and the advanced sleep function (S3, as the previous poster says) is the default sleep function in Vista. It is applicable in both 64 bit and 32 bit so is not really relevant to your query.

[rasmasyean]

Originally Posted by davehc

Disk caching, that is Superfetch and Readyboost, and the advanced sleep function (S3, as the previous poster says) is the default sleep function in Vista. It is applicable in both 64 bit and 32 bit so is not really relevant to your query.

I think it is relevant. Since each of these functions is in some way assisted by having more RAM...having > 4GB may at some point help productivity and also extend the useful life of your computer.

Even S3...because as users get used to it, they may be more likely to leave a lot of apps open over the week...or month! That will chew up a lot of RAM and if you have 32-bit, you will have less extra RAM for caching.

You may consider that this helps..."indirectly" from a certain point of view.

It is not very far-fecthed to have 30+ apps/windows/pdfs/etc. opened. I have seen and done many apps in XP where you would have to close some stuff when it starts getting slow. And in a work environment where electricity is "free" people tend to leave thier computers on so they can get right back into their last state the next work day. I've had Desktop support tell me..."Oh so that's why your don't have that App. It was supposed to auto-install last month when you logged on. But you haven't logged off in 3 months!!!". :P

With S3, people will start doing this kind of thing at home. But of course without IT professional builds and certified Apps, etc. I guess an occasional blue screen might wipe your tasks clean anyway. hehe

[davehc]

Fine. But the original poster wanted to know the differences between 32 bit and 64 Bit Vista. In fact, as I suggested, he is probably misguided in believing that he "needs" the 64 bit because he has 4Gbs of ram.

[Orumph]

Correct,
Just because you have 4 gigs of ram does not mean you HAVE TO Have 64-bit OS.

I need to do mroe research, but from everything that I have read so far,. and my understanding is......

You do not lose a gig of memory per-say, It is allocated off the top for certain things, while it may not all be used, it is not all being wasted either in a 32bit enviroment.

I think there is a lot of confusion over the 4G Ram Limitations of 32bit OS.

[rasmasyean]

If it is being allocated (reserved, held, frozen) however you want to look at it, it will not be part of user RAM.

[rasmasyean]

This is Vistaclues answer to a 4GB RAM configuration "missing RAM" on 32-bit systems. Take it for what it's worth to you.

"To answer your question, “does it have any effect on the OS or at the hardware layer to run in this configuration?”: It has no effect whatsoever. It’ll behave just like the unused memory wasn’t physically present."
http://www.vistaclues.com/reader-que...memory-limits/

In the end he says...
"Hey, on the upside, the 750MB of RAM you’re missing really wouldn’t have made that much difference anyway."

So he does say that you are "missing" the extra RAM on top due to allocation of devices...

but he says it won't matter to you. <-I disagree on this. Maybe this article is over a year old and things were different back then. But in Vista, Superfetch uses all the left over upper RAM to cache files making it act like fast HDD. So you will lose that...and coupled with the fact that todays machines are meant ot multitask a lot, that 750MB can make a difference. Personally I would blame that guru for thinking in "XP mentality". I'm not saying he's totally off, just that he needed to update his understanding of Vista (which at the time of his writing...perhaps Vista was brand new).

[rasmasyean]

If this is any indication that 64-bit is the wave of the future and 32-bit will be “obsolete”…

“There appears to be a shift taking place in the PC industry: the move from 32-bit to 64-bit PCs.
We've been tracking the change by looking at the percentage of 64-bit PCs connecting to Windows Update, and have seen a dramatic increase in recent months. The installed base of 64-bit Windows Vista PCs, as a percentage of all Windows Vista systems, has more than tripled in the U.S. in the last three months, while worldwide adoption has more than doubled during the same period. Another view shows that 20% of new Windows Vista PCs in the U.S. connecting to Windows Update in June were 64-bit PCs, up from just 3% in March. Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit. Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops.”
http://windowsvistablog.com/blogs/wi...bit-today.aspx