I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why would
you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
there a problem with the current 64-bit version?

Curious in Seattle

Device drivers and vast application support is still lacking, application
support in terms of what can take advantage of the features of 64 bit
computing such as the large memory address available to 64 bit Windows. Most
computers sold come with a minimum 1 GB of RAM or 2 GBs, some users will
generally max out 4, Vista 64 bit supports up to 128 GBs of physical RAM. So
regardless it might be optimum to a 64 bit OS on 64 bit hardware, the value
is not fully there 'yet'.

64 Bit processors is really just a state of the industry right now, the
technology is there so why not make it available? Regardless the majority of
applications for the desktop remain largely 32 bit, it is prepapring for
inevitable when there will be a mass transition to 64 bit, whether by the
Industry or end users. For instance, suppose you start doing a lot of
technical work that goes beyond the limits of 32 bit computing requiring
more than 4 GBs of RAM and real 64 bit OS such as the 64 bit version of
Vista, then you won't have to worry about changing out all your hardware to
take advantage of it.

The market that understands the capabilities, advantages and disadvantages
of using it, the biggest advantage of all has to be the support for a larger
memory address space
that allows you to do more number crunching with scientific, financial and
other engineering applications that use a lot of memory. Hopefully in the
future, more mainstream applications will support the platform and harness
its capabilities, but with the majority of systems coming with 1 to 2 GBs of
memory, and 64 bit really addressing larger amounts up to 128 GBs, you won't
see a lot of apps for now.
Here is a great article by Kristan Kenney (MVP) to read:
[url]http://www.windows-now.com/blogs/kmkenney/archive/2007/11/29/windows-vista-32-bit-vs-64-bit-which-one-is-right-for-you.aspx[/url]
--
Andre
Blog: [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com[/url]
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
[url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry[/url]

"Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:F014B357-E635-4693-9F88-80B74585F9DB@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why
> would you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware?
> Or is there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>
> Curious in Seattle[/color]

I have a different opinion from Andre. I say do a bit of investigation and
if all your hardware, including printers, cameras, etc., has 64 bit drivers
then go for 64 bit Vista. Eventually that is way the market will move. There
is no way to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. If you install 32 bit Vista now
then decide to upgrade to 64 bit later you will have to do a complete
reinstall from scratch.

The only caveat is driver availability. When Vista was first released I
tried 64 bit on several systems and ran into a wall with drivers. This has
changed. I have built a couple of 64 bit systems in the last month and it
was no problem finding drivers. If the drivers are available I'd go 64 bit.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
[url]http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/[/url]



"Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:F014B357-E635-4693-9F88-80B74585F9DB@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why
> would you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware?
> Or is there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>
> Curious in Seattle[/color]

On Sat, 5 Jan 2008 10:24:10 -0800, "Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com>
wrote:
[color=blue]
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why would
> you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
> there a problem with the current 64-bit version?[/color]


Several points here:

1. A dual-core processor is not necessarily a 64-bit chip. It is
simply two processors in a single package, and those processors can be
either 32-bit or 64-bit.

2. Yes, 32-bit Windows can run on a 64-bit processor (or processors).
It just won't use the "64-bitness" of the chip.

3. Unless you also run 64-bit applications (and there are very few of
those available yet) under 64-bit Windows, most people report little
or no benefit to running 64-bit Windows.

4. If you run 64-bit Windows, you need special 64-bit drivers for all
your hardware. In many cases, the needed drivers aren't available, and
that means that you would have to get rid of that piece of hardware
and replace it with one for which 64-bit drivers are available. That's
added trouble and expense that many people don't want to go through
for little or no benefit.

The day of 64-bit computing will be here soon, and we'll all be doing
it. But for most of us, it doesn't yet make much sense.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:crpvn31sa5r3mb1fntfhtpiqemo566ij6b@4ax.com...[color=blue]
> Several points here:
>
> 1. A dual-core processor is not necessarily a 64-bit chip. It is
> simply two processors in a single package, and those processors can be
> either 32-bit or 64-bit.
>
> 2. Yes, 32-bit Windows can run on a 64-bit processor (or processors).
> It just won't use the "64-bitness" of the chip.
>
> 3. Unless you also run 64-bit applications (and there are very few of
> those available yet) under 64-bit Windows, most people report little
> or no benefit to running 64-bit Windows.
>
> 4. If you run 64-bit Windows, you need special 64-bit drivers for all
> your hardware. In many cases, the needed drivers aren't available, and
> that means that you would have to get rid of that piece of hardware
> and replace it with one for which 64-bit drivers are available. That's
> added trouble and expense that many people don't want to go through
> for little or no benefit.
>
> The day of 64-bit computing will be here soon, and we'll all be doing
> it. But for most of us, it doesn't yet make much sense.
>
>
> --
> Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
> Please Reply to the Newsgroup[/color]

I just discovered that the Silverlight plugin wont run on the IE 7 64 bit.
Its bad enough that Flash wont work EVEN THOUGH VISTA IS A YEAR OLD. Adobe
should be ashamed. But Microsoft's own software? I mean, come on! How lazy
are they? OS X continues to chip away at Vista and it is fully 64 bit. Why
is Microsoft content to stay in the 1990's on the 64 bit issue? It makes no
sense from a marketing or technology perspective.

I was running Vista 64 bit on my made up AMD Sempron since Beta 2 and I
didn't have a driver problem at all. In fact, there wasn't much of a device
driver problem at launch, my HP Deskjet 840c, HP Scanjet 2400 all work
perfectly on 64 bit Vista. But there is still some lack in support from the
industry from the software support side, that needs to be ironed out. You
can even see some of it coming from Microsoft. Windows Live Suite didn't
support Vista x64 until RTM, no print driver for OneNote, no 64 bit client
software for Windows Home Server, in fact the lack of an upgrade path from
XP Professional x64 or even XP x86 to Vista x64 shows that even Microsoft
realizes that the entire industry isn't sold just 'yet' on 64 bit.

For the average user using email, Microsoft Office (which is still a 32 bit
application) and surfing the Internet, stick with 32 bit Vista. If you want
extra security, then 64 bit Vista is something to look at for sure:

- Device Driver signing
- Hardware DEP
- Patch Guard

Those are some of the stuff that put Vista x64 above Vista x86, but it still
doesn't mean Vista x86 is not good enough.
--
Andre
Blog: [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com[/url]
My Vista Quickstart Guide:
[url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry[/url]
"Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
news:0A8344D3-842B-4441-9EAA-259AA246C389@microsoft.com...[color=blue]
>I have a different opinion from Andre. I say do a bit of investigation and
>if all your hardware, including printers, cameras, etc., has 64 bit drivers
>then go for 64 bit Vista. Eventually that is way the market will move.
>There is no way to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. If you install 32 bit
>Vista now then decide to upgrade to 64 bit later you will have to do a
>complete reinstall from scratch.
>
> The only caveat is driver availability. When Vista was first released I
> tried 64 bit on several systems and ran into a wall with drivers. This has
> changed. I have built a couple of 64 bit systems in the last month and it
> was no problem finding drivers. If the drivers are available I'd go 64
> bit.
>
> --
> Kerry Brown
> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
> [url]http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/[/url]
>
>
>
> "Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
> news:F014B357-E635-4693-9F88-80B74585F9DB@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
>> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version
>> would run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does,
>> why would you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit
>> hardware? Or is there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>>
>> Curious in Seattle[/color]
>[/color]

We'll have to agree to disagree on this. I think someone buying a new
computer is better off with Vista x64 unless they have some legacy
peripheral that just won't work. Installing x64 from the start means they
have more options when upgrading in the future. I initially installed Vista
x64 on my laptop when Vista RTMed in November 2006. I had a lot of problems
with drivers and switched to Vista x86. Now I'd like to upgrade to 4 GB of
RAM so I can use VPC 2007 for demos but it means a total reinstall from
scratch. Not that big of a deal for me but for many it would be a deal
breaker.

--
Kerry Brown
Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
[url]http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/[/url]



"Andre Da Costa[ActiveWin]" <andred25********.com> wrote in message
news:eBxAFFAUIHA.4740@TK2MSFTNGP02.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>I was running Vista 64 bit on my made up AMD Sempron since Beta 2 and I
>didn't have a driver problem at all. In fact, there wasn't much of a device
>driver problem at launch, my HP Deskjet 840c, HP Scanjet 2400 all work
>perfectly on 64 bit Vista. But there is still some lack in support from the
>industry from the software support side, that needs to be ironed out. You
>can even see some of it coming from Microsoft. Windows Live Suite didn't
>support Vista x64 until RTM, no print driver for OneNote, no 64 bit client
>software for Windows Home Server, in fact the lack of an upgrade path from
>XP Professional x64 or even XP x86 to Vista x64 shows that even Microsoft
>realizes that the entire industry isn't sold just 'yet' on 64 bit.
>
> For the average user using email, Microsoft Office (which is still a 32
> bit application) and surfing the Internet, stick with 32 bit Vista. If you
> want extra security, then 64 bit Vista is something to look at for sure:
>
> - Device Driver signing
> - Hardware DEP
> - Patch Guard
>
> Those are some of the stuff that put Vista x64 above Vista x86, but it
> still doesn't mean Vista x86 is not good enough.
> --
> Andre
> Blog: [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com[/url]
> My Vista Quickstart Guide:
> [url]http://adacosta.spaces.live.com/blog/cns!E8E5CC039D51E3DB!9709.entry[/url]
> "Kerry Brown" <kerry@kdbNOSPAMsys-tems.c*a*m> wrote in message
> news:0A8344D3-842B-4441-9EAA-259AA246C389@microsoft.com...[color=green]
>>I have a different opinion from Andre. I say do a bit of investigation and
>>if all your hardware, including printers, cameras, etc., has 64 bit
>>drivers then go for 64 bit Vista. Eventually that is way the market will
>>move. There is no way to upgrade from 32 bit to 64 bit. If you install 32
>>bit Vista now then decide to upgrade to 64 bit later you will have to do a
>>complete reinstall from scratch.
>>
>> The only caveat is driver availability. When Vista was first released I
>> tried 64 bit on several systems and ran into a wall with drivers. This
>> has changed. I have built a couple of 64 bit systems in the last month
>> and it was no problem finding drivers. If the drivers are available I'd
>> go 64 bit.
>>
>> --
>> Kerry Brown
>> Microsoft MVP - Shell/User
>> [url]http://www.vistahelp.ca/phpBB2/[/url]
>>
>>
>>
>> "Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
>> news:F014B357-E635-4693-9F88-80B74585F9DB@microsoft.com...[color=darkred]
>>> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core
>>> processors include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit
>>> version would run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if
>>> it does, why would you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for
>>> 64-bit hardware? Or is there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>>>
>>> Curious in Seattle[/color]
>>[/color]
>
>[/color]

I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why would
you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
there a problem with the current 64-bit version?

Curious in Seattle

32 Bit is still the standard. That is why it still comes pre-installed.
The thing is that there is some compatibility issues with 64 Bit and
drivers, applications. So they put 32 Bit on so that the end user can just
go and do what they want. Most common users don't know the difference or
that some things that you can run on a 32 Bit system cant work on a 64 Bit
system. The drivers are different, the installers are different and some
applications are optimized for 64 Bit systems.

IT really doesn't matter if you run a 32 Bit OS or 64 Bit OS on the 64 Bit
hardware. It will run the same. It is just convience that it is done this
way. The common PC user doesn't really know what version of the OS they are
using let alone that they would need to look specifically for 64 Bit
versions.

--
~Alex T~
..:MVP Windows Shell/User:.

"Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote in message
news:uOwe8a2UIHA.4752@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...[color=blue]
>
>
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why
> would
> you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
> there a problem with the current 64-bit version?
>
> Curious in Seattle
>
>[/color]

"Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com> wrote:
[color=blue]
>I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
>include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
>run on a 64-bit chip. But the real question is, even if it does, why would
>you? Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
>there a problem with the current 64-bit version?[/color]

I think that Intel's first 64-bit processor would not run 32-bit code,
but they found out that people didn't like that. All 64-bit processors
now being sold, both Intel and AMD will run 32-bit code.

Why run the 32-bit OS on that hardware? There are few to no 64-bit
programs yet, and it's much easier to find 32-bit drivers than 64-bit
ones. Also, the 32-bit OS will run older 16-bit programs, the 64-bit
version won't.

--
Tim Slattery
MS MVP(Shell/User)
[email]Slattery_T@bls.gov[/email]
[url]http://members.cox.net/slatteryt[/url]

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 00:56:47 -0800, "Howard Woodard" <woodard@msn.com>
wrote:

[color=blue]
> I've noticed that a lot of ads for new PCs that have dual core processors
> include the Vista 32-bit OS. I didn't know that the 32-bit version would
> run on a 64-bit chip.[/color]


Yes, no problem at all.

[color=blue]
> But the real question is, even if it does, why would
> you?
> Wouldn't a 64-bit OS be the optimum OS for 64-bit hardware? Or is
> there a problem with the current 64-bit version?[/color]


There's no problem with the 64-bit version. The reason is twofold:

1. There are often problems getting 64-bit drivers for some hardware,
especially older hardware. Many people don't want to buy a new
printer, scanner, etc., just to run 64-bit Vista.

2. The performance advantages of 64-bit Vista mostly come about if you
run 64-bit applications. But since there are very few 64-bit
applications available so far, there is little advantage to running it
now.

64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
prefer to wait.

--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
news:1mhco39b6ss1gvdokedv2koo3795rcr2oq@4ax.com...[color=blue]
>
> 64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
> now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
> older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
> be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
> prefer to wait.
>[/color]

Based on my experience, I'd advise him to go 64 bit now. If you buy a new
computer with x64 pre-installed, you'll have no problems. I bought a
ThinkPad R61 with Vista Business 64 and it runs great. No issues. All my 32
bit programs (like Office 2007) run fine. 64 bit is the future. Why pay
money for yesterday's technology?

On Thu, 10 Jan 2008 18:07:30 -0800, "Titus Pullo" <null@unix.site>
wrote:
[color=blue]
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:1mhco39b6ss1gvdokedv2koo3795rcr2oq@4ax.com...[color=green]
> >
> > 64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
> > now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
> > older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
> > be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
> > prefer to wait.
> >[/color]
>
> Based on my experience, I'd advise him to go 64 bit now. If you buy a new
> computer with x64 pre-installed, you'll have no problems.[/color]


True, as far as the computer itself goes. Not necessarily true if he
has older peripherals--printers, scanner, etc.

If you know that all your peripherals have 64-bit Vista drivers
available, then I agree with you. If the lack of printer and scanner
drivers means you need to replace the printers and scanner you already
have, he may find that using 64-bit Vista entails a fairly substantial
extra expense.

[color=blue]
> I bought a
> ThinkPad R61 with Vista Business 64 and it runs great. No issues. All my 32
> bit programs (like Office 2007) run fine. 64 bit is the future. Why pay
> money for yesterday's technology?[/color]


Once again, I agree (especially if 64-bit Vista comes pre-installed,
since that means there should be no issues with drivers except
possibly with peripherals), *if* using it doesn't mean you need to
replace existing peripherals. If you have to replace peripherals, you
need to pay extra money for tomorrow's technology.


--
Ken Blake, Microsoft MVP Windows - Shell/User
Please Reply to the Newsgroup

"Titus Pullo" <null@unix.site> wrote in message
news:PvidnfqhgL3_UhvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:1mhco39b6ss1gvdokedv2koo3795rcr2oq@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>
>> 64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
>> now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
>> older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
>> be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
>> prefer to wait.
>>[/color]
>
> Based on my experience, I'd advise him to go 64 bit now. If you buy a new
> computer with x64 pre-installed, you'll have no problems.[/color]

At least, not with the computer itself... but that ends as soon as you start
adding applications and external hardware.
[color=blue]
> I bought a ThinkPad R61 with Vista Business 64 and it runs great. No
> issues. All my 32 bit programs (like Office 2007) run fine. 64 bit is the
> future. Why pay money for yesterday's technology?[/color]

Because there's more to the computing environment than just the PC itself.
I also have an R61 with Vista Business, and would *not* put Vista 64 on it.

Why? Because there are *no* 64-bit drivers for some of the external
hardware I must use, and some of the software I must use won't run on it.

I don't use PCs to run an OS, I use them to run applications and use
specific hardware. If the apps won't run and the hardware won't work under
a specific OS, that OS is off the table.

HTH
-pk

Thanks all. I got it. I do have a lot of older (2-4 yr old) [USB] scanners
and printers that I'll want to continue to use.

Regards,

Howard
=====================================

"Titus Pullo" <null@unix.site> wrote in message
news:PvidnfqhgL3_UhvanZ2dnUVZ_g-dnZ2d@comcast.com...[color=blue]
>
> "Ken Blake, MVP" <kblake@this.is.an.invalid.domain> wrote in message
> news:1mhco39b6ss1gvdokedv2koo3795rcr2oq@4ax.com...[color=green]
>>
>> 64-bit computing is really just beginning. A year or two or three from
>> now, when there are lots of 64-bit applications available, and the
>> older devices without 64-bit drivers are mostly gone, many of us will
>> be running a 64-bit operating system. But for the moment, many people
>> prefer to wait.
>>[/color]
>
> Based on my experience, I'd advise him to go 64 bit now. If you buy a new
> computer with x64 pre-installed, you'll have no problems. I bought a
> ThinkPad R61 with Vista Business 64 and it runs great. No issues. All my
> 32 bit programs (like Office 2007) run fine. 64 bit is the future. Why pay
> money for yesterday's technology?[/color]