BetaArchive Logo
Navigation Home Screenshots Image Uploader Server Info FTP Servers Wiki Forum RSS Feed Rules Please Donate
UP: 0d, 2h, 11m | CPU: 33% | MEM: 2394MB of 3431MB used
{The community for beta collectors}

Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 
Author Message
 PostPost subject: Getting it wrong about Windows Vista x64        Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 6:48 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Paul Thurrot debunks some common... and not so common myths about the 64-bit flavor of Windows Vista.

Source: http://community.winsupersite.com/blogs ... a-x64.aspx

Walter Mossberg gets it wrong

First up is the Wall Street Journal’s Walter Mossberg, a man who suggests switching to Mac OS X as a cure-all for whatever issue you may be having with Windows at the time. In today’s Mossberg’s Mailbox, Walt offers up some stunningly bad advice.

Quote:
Q: I have a new PC that came with a 64-bit version of the Windows operating system. It gives me a choice between using a 32-bit Internet Explorer or a 64-bit Internet Explorer. Which should I use?

A: The 64-bit version of Windows, which is rarely used by average consumers, can make the computer faster, but only when running programs that have been written in special 64-bit versions.


If I can quote the "great" Ted Stevens, former senator of Alaska, NO, NO, NO.

Native 64-bit applications do not “make the computer faster.” Just moving to a 64-bit operating system, with its massive and flat memory address space, can make some difference. But any performance improvements you may get with that platform will come about from adding more RAM, a situation that, incidentally, is true on 32-bit systems as well.

Quote:
In the consumer arena, there are too few such programs, and thus too little benefit, to justify paying extra for 64-bit machines.


NO, NO, NO. That is simply not true. You do not “pay extra” for 64-bit machines. All PCs are 64-bit machines now. And you don’t pay extra for PCs that come with 64-bit versions of Vista. They’re the same price. What you get when you go x64 is more available memory, even on a PC that is constrained to 4 GB maximum. There are huge benefits to this.

Quote:
In fact, most people who have computers running 64-bit Windows are mostly using older 32-bit programs, which run fine, but aren't made quicker.


So there’s no downside then. Thank God for backwards compatibility.

Quote:
So, the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer may run faster.


NO, NO, NO. It won’t.

Well, except in one hilarious circumstance: Since all those add-ons you prize so much (see below) won’t work in the x64 version of IE, then yes, maybe it will actually run faster. But then, so would the 32-bit version of IE if you uninstalled those add-ons.

Quote:
But there is a downside. Because of the relative rarity of 64-bit users, some browser add-ons and toolbars and some of the Web technologies that power the features of Web pages, aren't compatible with the 64-bit version of IE. On top of that, you may not notice any huge speed difference as the perceived speed of Web browsers depends more on the speed of your Internet connection than anything else. So, for now, I would stick with the 32-bit version, for compatibility's sake. You can always install the 64-bit version later, if you decide that the Web sites you frequent and the add-ons you use work well with it.


You can’t install the 64-bit version of Internet Explorer on Windows Vista. It just comes with Vista. You can choose between the 32-bit, 64-bit and No Add-Ons versions on the fly.

When it comes to this topic, this guy has no idea what he’s talking about, plain and simple. If you’re looking for the truth on Vista x64, please refer to my earlier blog post on the subject, Suddenly, 64-bit Windows is mainstream. It works just fine.

Windows Secrets gets it wrong

Next up, we have the Windows Secrets newsletter. (Full disclosure: I briefly wrote for Windows Secrets a few years back.) This newsletter has come under fire a lot recently for its sensationalist and easily debunked headlines and stories. Here’s the latest example:

Quote:
Vince Heiker, a retired IT executive in the Dallas area has used 64-bit Vista for some time — and hates the OS.

All versions of Vista have serious compatibility glitches, including problems with Office 2007, but the 64-bit release also suffers from a lack of applications written to take advantage of that version's ability to address more than 4GB of RAM.


Um, what?

Just so we’re clear, this entire article—and all of the charges it makes—are based on the feedback of a handful of readers with very specific issues. Since this is 2008, and everyone gets a podium, we must thus consider these statements as gospel truth. Consider the following bits of silliness:

Quote:
“Vista-64 is junkware. It is absolutely the worst, the buggiest software Microsoft has ever released," Heiker tells Windows Secrets.


(He must have never used Windows XP x64. But I digress.)

Quote:
"ACT, a fairly popular contact-management program, will not work in 64-bit, and currently Sage has no plans to support it," reader Frank Boecherer said in an e-mail.

Also on the list of software that readers say is missing in action is a 64-bit version of Adobe's popular Flash player. And don't forget Office 2007, which comes only in a 32-bit edition.


Um, again. What??

Adobe Flash and Office 2007 work just fine in Vista x64. In fact, I use them every day.

Quote:
Among the problems Heiker cites is "a jerky mouse cursor" that interprets mouse clicks in one spot on the screen as an action on a different spot.

That's not OK, particularly if you're a day trader like those Heiker supports for TradeStation.com, where a click on the wrong spot can cost serious money. Heiker says he's experienced the mouse-location problem with three different mice, all relatively new purchases.


So I’ve been using Vista x64 on a variety of machines, every single day, since April 2008. I’ve never experienced the jerky mouse thing. But this begs the question, how is it possible that Windows Secrets didn’t blame the current financial crisis on Windows Vista? It seems like Heiker spells that out pretty clear. Wow.

Quote:
Heiker finally isolated the cause: the 64-bit version of Vista Ultimate failed to remove old device drivers ... "The only way to get rid of the hardware drivers was to reinstall Vista," Heiker said.


Um. How did they get on there? Did Heiker install them (and thus “Fail to not install them”)? Because there’s no way they were on there to begin with. And you can’t upgrade from Vista 32-bit to Vista x64. Sounds like user error. In fact, this whole thing sounds like a user issue, to be frank.

This is my favorite bit...

Quote:
Another glitch Heiker continues to confront is a real doozy: with no explanation in sight, his 64-bit Vista PC has accumulated some 23 million Registry entries. No, that's not a typo — 23 million.


So I’m curious. How exactly did this guy “count” the Registry? Did he use a 32-bit app for this? Seriously. I’d love to know. And I’d love to know what the difference in size between the Registry in the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista.

Quote:
"[Microsoft] haven't fixed a single problem that I've reported," he adds.


LOL. No doubt. They’ll find Sasquatch first, I bet.

You know, there’s a big difference between providing a service for readers and just scaring them over nothing. Vista x64 is a huge accomplishment, and it’s made 64-bit computing mainstream. I use it every day. And while all software has issues--obviously--there is nothing endemic going on here at all. Shame.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 7:38 pm 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Wed Aug 27, 2008 12:52 am

Posts
890

Location
United States

Favourite OS
Windows Server 2008 Standard
Not ALL PCs in retail stores are 64-bit, once in a while I'll find a PC with x86 Vista Home Premium, but with only 2GB.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 8:51 pm 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Mon Jun 16, 2008 4:32 am

Posts
263

Favourite OS
Windows 8 7955
@Thlump unless it is using a POS processor instead of the standard Core 2 or any AMD then the PC is 64bit capable, just because the OEM decided to install vista 32 doesn't change what the PC is actually capable of.

I've used both 64 and 32 bit vista and they are both great OSs


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Thu Oct 09, 2008 9:10 pm 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Mon Dec 31, 2007 4:09 am

Posts
368

Location
Sweden
Given how insanely cheap DDR2 is nowadays I'm surprised that relatively few machines sell with 4+ GB ram and with Vista x64. Picked up 8GB corsair memory for less than 150€ the other week and it's probably dropped in price even more now.

Only down-side with Vista x64 is that I have an old 16-bit NT4 app that refuses to run, everything else works perfectly.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:23 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Mon Sep 03, 2007 2:47 am

Posts
606

Location
$HOME
I've used both versions too, and everything runs nicely. Haven't found any problems actually.
Just some rare or missing drivers, but we will all eventually switch to 64 bit oses sooner or later.
I like vista!


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 12:39 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Fri Dec 29, 2006 6:40 am

Posts
1513
ram is cheap, but core 2 quads aren't
intel should really think of reducing it's price, it's the most expecsive thing the the pc
most pc comes with athlon X2 being under $100 or pentium duo core which are 64 bit anyways, but not the best for performance.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 3:19 am 
FTP Access
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 29, 2007 9:30 pm

Posts
303
XDude wrote:
ram is cheap, but core 2 quads aren't
intel should really think of reducing it's price, it's the most expecsive thing the the pc
most pc comes with athlon X2 being under $100 or pentium duo core which are 64 bit anyways, but not the best for performance.

I'm not sure of your location, but at least on Newegg you can get a Phenom X4 for $130, and a C2Q Q6600 for $190. Its hardly unreasonable.

Also the cost of manufacturing a Processor (either CPU or GPU) is immensely more expensive than making a RAM chip, or even a motherboard.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 4:18 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Jun 13, 2008 10:22 am

Posts
2366
Besides, you don't need a Core 2 Quad to use 4GB+ of RAM, you just need a 64-bit CPU. Good luck finding a computer in a store that comes with Vista and has a CPU that isn't 64-bit. I'll agree that if I had an entry level CPU I wouldn't care to have loads of RAM, most PCs though have mainstream CPUs.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Fri Oct 10, 2008 9:59 am 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Thu Feb 07, 2008 1:35 pm

Posts
571

Location
United Kingdom
Even though now I have Windows Vista Ultimate SP1 32-bit, when 7 is released, if it comes in both 32-bit & 64-bit, I will get the 64-bit version. Yes, I know I might of said this before, I am just telling those who haven't read it.

_________________
Image


Top  Profile  WWW
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 3:56 am 
Donator
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Sat Aug 19, 2006 12:19 am

Posts
1915

Location
New Zealand
that mouse part made me laugh. sounds like using a optical mouse on a shitty surface eg reflects the light in all different directions instead of back at the receiver. I have yet to see a problem with vista x64 besides 16bit apps (as there is no emulation) and some [censored] hardware.

If i had about 2000 tabs open in IE, im sure the 64bit version would be faster :D


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 8:15 am 
Donator
Offline

Joined
Wed Jul 16, 2008 7:04 pm

Posts
101
The only reason I don't plan on switching to x64 on this PC is driver issues. Once 7 comes out I assume most if not all hardware will have x64 drivers.


Top  Profile
 PostPost subject:        Posted: Sat Oct 11, 2008 6:09 pm 
FTP Access
User avatar
Offline

Joined
Fri Sep 01, 2006 10:04 pm

Posts
1022

Location
The Ephemeral between existance and non-existance: AKA "being"

Favourite OS
Rhapsody, BeOS
Do you have some specific peice of hardware that you think will not work?

_________________
Image
Part Time Troll - HPC Enthusiast - Spelling Master - Old Fart


Top  Profile  WWW
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic This topic is locked, you cannot edit posts or make further replies.  [ 12 posts ] 




Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 7 guests


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  

All views expressed in these forums are those of the author and do not necessarily represent the views of the BetaArchive site owner.

Powered by phpBB® Forum Software © phpBB Group

Copyright © 2006-2018

 

Sitemap | XML | RSS