In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it doesn't
work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it I can find
is many months out-of-date.

Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and 32-bit? I
know it takes more but am not sure how much.

Thanks

Vista 64-bit has always been "ready for primetime" - it's the hardware
manufacturers who are behind the eight-ball. Personally, I don't recommend
that anyone use 64-bit Windows unless they need to ... and if they need to,
they know they need to.

I have no idea what "memory delta" you're talking about - I've seen no such
comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on the same hardware platform.

--
Richard G. Harper [MVP Shell/User] [email]rgharper******.com[/email]
* NEW! Catch my blog ... [url]http://msmvps.com/blogs/rgharper/[/url]
* PLEASE post all messages and replies in the newsgroups
* The Website - [url]http://rgharper.mvps.org/[/url]
* HELP us help YOU ... [url]http://www.dts-l.org/goodpost.htm[/url]


"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uSvmPFwCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
> words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it doesn't
> work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it I can find
> is many months out-of-date.
>
> Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and 32-bit?
> I know it takes more but am not sure how much.[/color]

Milhouse Van Houten wrote:[color=blue]
> In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
> words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it
> doesn't work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it
> I can find is many months out-of-date.
>
> Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and
> 32-bit? I know it takes more but am not sure how much.
>
> Thanks[/color]

I have it running on 2 laptops and 2 desktops.
I can honestly say that I've had no problems finding 64-bit drivers.
With one exception (an older Canon printer where I was surprised that
they even had a 32-bit driver) I've found the hardware vendors provide
both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. One of the laptops is a Lenovo X61T
tablet and has a pile of drivers to install, but all the 64-bit versions
were there. Likewise for one of the desktops which has serious Raid
storage as well as a TV tuner.

As far as apps are concerned, I've had a few (those with software pseudo
devices) where I had to wait for any version of Vista support (all there
now). All others run fine as 32-bit. One exception is a 32-bit app with
a 16-bit install, but in that case merely copying over the directories
from a working system and pointing to the .exe works fine.

I also installed Virtual PC 2007 with a copy of XP under it to handle
any possible exceptions, but can honestly say that apart from using it
to accesss some capabilities in WMP10 I never fire it up.

I also have 3 32-bit systems (only because they can't run 64-bit Vista)
and I can't say I notice any difference at all in the memory usage.
There's a very small disk overhead (a few extra copies of 32-bit apps in
Vista) but maybe only a MB or 2.

I see repeatedly advice warning of a lack of 64-bit drivers but my
experience doesn't bear that out. But I would recommend checking with
your system provider's download site as well as Intel/AMD's and the
sites of any add-on hardware devices before taking the step.

As far as stability and operation is concerned, I see no difference
between 64-bit and 32-bit, in fact maybe from some of the comments here
I have less problems than most.

Hope that helps!

i recently put together my own x64 vista pc - stick with the better
hardware manufacturers eg asus/gigabyte and the like for excellent
motherboard support, nvidia and ati are pretty much just as supportive
of the platform graphics wise, for any new fairly recent hardware
anyway and they generally release unified driver packages.

i'd say if you can do with the extra grunt and memory availability go
for it!

i'm generally using the platform for virtualization purposes (studying
for mcsa)and garphic stuff. vista x64 has been behaving very stable and
i have yet to come across much software at all that won't run from the
off, and can usually be coaxed into it if it does give trouble.

like the previous poster said, if you think you can benefit go for it!


--
squeakstar
------------------------------------------------------------------------
squeakstar's Profile: [url]http://forums.techarena.in/member.php?userid=29478[/url]
View this thread: [url]http://forums.techarena.in/showthread.php?t=831400[/url]

[url]http://forums.techarena.in[/url]

I used to recommend waiting because of driver availability. I've recently
built a new computer and installed Vista x64. So far I've had no problems
finding drivers. The driver situation is much better than it used to be.
That said, if you have any hardware devices or software that you can't do
without make sure that they are compatible with Vista x64 first. Older Palm
devices, printers, etc, can be troublesome. 16 bit programs will not run.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
[url]http://www.vistahelp.ca[/url]


"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message
news:uSvmPFwCIHA.4444@TK2MSFTNGP03.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
> words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it doesn't
> work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it I can find
> is many months out-of-date.
>
> Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and 32-bit?
> I know it takes more but am not sure how much.
>
> Thanks[/color]

"cvp" <goaway@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:e$hdyWzCIHA.3940@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Milhouse Van Houten wrote:[color=green]
>> In terms of driver availability and application compatibility? In other
>> words, is it still a fight or are the devices and applications it doesn't
>> work with now down to the obscure? The latest evaluation of it I can
>> find is many months out-of-date.
>>
>> Also, does anyone know the memory delta on average between it and 32-bit?
>> I know it takes more but am not sure how much.
>>
>> Thanks[/color]
>
> I have it running on 2 laptops and 2 desktops.
> I can honestly say that I've had no problems finding 64-bit drivers. With
> one exception (an older Canon printer where I was surprised that they even
> had a 32-bit driver) I've found the hardware vendors provide
> both 32-bit and 64-bit versions. One of the laptops is a Lenovo X61T
> tablet and has a pile of drivers to install, but all the 64-bit versions
> were there. Likewise for one of the desktops which has serious Raid
> storage as well as a TV tuner.
>
> As far as apps are concerned, I've had a few (those with software pseudo
> devices) where I had to wait for any version of Vista support (all there
> now). All others run fine as 32-bit. One exception is a 32-bit app with a
> 16-bit install, but in that case merely copying over the directories from
> a working system and pointing to the .exe works fine.
>
> I also installed Virtual PC 2007 with a copy of XP under it to handle any
> possible exceptions, but can honestly say that apart from using it to
> accesss some capabilities in WMP10 I never fire it up.
>
> I also have 3 32-bit systems (only because they can't run 64-bit Vista)
> and I can't say I notice any difference at all in the memory usage.
> There's a very small disk overhead (a few extra copies of 32-bit apps in
> Vista) but maybe only a MB or 2.
>
> I see repeatedly advice warning of a lack of 64-bit drivers but my
> experience doesn't bear that out. But I would recommend checking with your
> system provider's download site as well as Intel/AMD's and the sites of
> any add-on hardware devices before taking the step.
>
> As far as stability and operation is concerned, I see no difference
> between 64-bit and 32-bit, in fact maybe from some of the comments here I
> have less problems than most.
>
> Hope that helps![/color]

Yes, thanks to everyone and particularly you for this thorough response.
I've quote the whole thing so it's in the record twice.

I can't explain where I got the idea that it consumes more memory for
itself -- the beta? reviews? -- but that's what stuck in my brain somehow.
It's great to know that it doesn't, that you don't need north of 2GB RAM to
be comfortable in it (2GB is plenty for what I run in 32-bit).

Not that it's important to me these days, but I also expected that it takes
a couple gigs more disk space, simply because the ISO is that much larger
(roughly), but that's also not really the case somehow.

So all in all, given that you do have a 64-bit system and don't have any
deal-breaking hardware without drivers -- or have an everyday app that just
doesn't work, whether it be because of a 16-bit installer or something
else -- I'm not seeing any reason to hold back any longer.

So while there may not be many compelling reasons to move to it, in my case
at least, there don't seem to be any reasons not to move to it, and that's
really what I was trying to understand.

"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:O3fCIfyCIHA.2280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Vista 64-bit has always been "ready for primetime" - it's the hardware
> manufacturers who are behind the eight-ball. Personally, I don't
> recommend that anyone use 64-bit Windows unless they need to ... and if
> they need to, they know they need to.
>
> I have no idea what "memory delta" you're talking about - I've seen no
> such comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on the same hardware platform.[/color]

I finally recalled where I saw this intimated (see below). I'm not
suggesting that anyone should run it with 1GB (or 32-bit Vista, for that
matter), but the fact here that the app speeds didn't reach parity until
64-bit was bumped to 2GB suggests to me that 64-bit uses more memory than
32-bit. And it never did reach parity when it came to multitasking.

[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128305-page,4-c,vistalonghorn/article.html[/url]
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=128305&page=4&zoomIdx=1[/url]
"Our tests of Vista's 64-bit version indicate that while programs generally
run slower on it than they do on the 32-bit version, adding more RAM can
help wipe out the difference (see the "Apps Run Faster on 32-Bit Vista" test
report). With 1GB installed RAM, the Polywell and Micro Express PCs ran our
Photoshop test 12 percent and 25 percent slower, respectively, in 64-bit
Vista. When we moved both systems up to 2GB, the difference disappeared
completely.

"The delta on the multitasking test was much smaller--between 4 and 7
percent, regardless of the PC's memory configuration--and our gaming test
results showed almost no difference. We don't know how often hardware
vendors will put their latest drivers through the full testing and signing
process for 64-bit Vista, but these initial results suggest that, as long as
your system packs plenty of memory, you won't be taking much of a hit by
going 64-bit."

Kerry Brown wrote:[color=blue]
> I used to recommend waiting because of driver availability. I've
> recently built a new computer and installed Vista x64. So far I've had
> no problems finding drivers. The driver situation is much better than it
> used to be. That said, if you have any hardware devices or software that
> you can't do without make sure that they are compatible with Vista x64
> first. Older Palm devices, printers, etc, can be troublesome. 16 bit
> programs will not run.
>[/color]


Even I would agree that after a period of really annoying driver issues
things have become much better, however this may mean that anything not
already supported may never be, and therefore could prove to be a real
showstopper. IOW if you haven't seen a driver for it yet, don't hold
your breath :)

Last part is VERY sound advice.

Memory resources would have to be necessary with 64 bit pathways.
The design has a primary goal of adding more floating point calculations per cycle.
The only way they would be useful is adding more cache and more ram to keep the entire system flowing and assisting the output.

My real concern is the API, Task Manager, & necessary processes for JIT to actually require in the startup.
I was totally disapointed when I looked at my task manager after every program installation from Microsofts own platforms.
The numbers just kept going up and up and up wasting all of the real estate and complicating 3rd party development for memory handling.
If the manufacturer isn't able to handle garbage cleanup for necessary runtime services at any given time, how can the developers hope to?
From an IT standpoint, I won't touch this OS with a 10 foot pole.
Supporting it, managing it or otherwise regular use.
I am not seeing any gains in efficiency as a home user at all.

"Milhouse Van Houten" <btvs@myrealbox.com> wrote in message news:%23NDdDwDDIHA.3916@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...
"Richard G. Harper" <rgharper@email.com> wrote in message
news:O3fCIfyCIHA.2280@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
> Vista 64-bit has always been "ready for primetime" - it's the hardware
> manufacturers who are behind the eight-ball. Personally, I don't
> recommend that anyone use 64-bit Windows unless they need to ... and if
> they need to, they know they need to.
>
> I have no idea what "memory delta" you're talking about - I've seen no
> such comparing 32-bit and 64-bit Windows on the same hardware platform.[/color]

I finally recalled where I saw this intimated (see below). I'm not
suggesting that anyone should run it with 1GB (or 32-bit Vista, for that
matter), but the fact here that the app speeds didn't reach parity until
64-bit was bumped to 2GB suggests to me that 64-bit uses more memory than
32-bit. And it never did reach parity when it came to multitasking.

[url]http://www.pcworld.com/article/id,128305-page,4-c,vistalonghorn/article.html[/url]
[url]http://www.pcworld.com/zoom?id=128305&page=4&zoomIdx=1[/url]
"Our tests of Vista's 64-bit version indicate that while programs generally
run slower on it than they do on the 32-bit version, adding more RAM can
help wipe out the difference (see the "Apps Run Faster on 32-Bit Vista" test
report). With 1GB installed RAM, the Polywell and Micro Express PCs ran our
Photoshop test 12 percent and 25 percent slower, respectively, in 64-bit
Vista. When we moved both systems up to 2GB, the difference disappeared
completely.

"The delta on the multitasking test was much smaller--between 4 and 7
percent, regardless of the PC's memory configuration--and our gaming test
results showed almost no difference. We don't know how often hardware
vendors will put their latest drivers through the full testing and signing
process for 64-bit Vista, but these initial results suggest that, as long as
your system packs plenty of memory, you won't be taking much of a hit by
going 64-bit."