Vista 64 and AMD 64 X2

[depthofperception]

I'm running an AMD Athlon 64 X2 4400+ and my questions are:

Is Vista 64 worth the upgrade over Vista 32?
Should I wait on upgrading?
Are there any major programs incompatible with Vista 64?

Thank you!

 

[Archimedez]

"Worth the upgrade"? NO! Vista is decidely unstable on multi-core machines: see the other 5 posts today for machines similar to yours.

I also run an old AMD Athlon 64 X2 "Hammer" on an MSI K8N Plat board; 4 gig of RAM; GS7800 video card; Audigy sound card "experience index" of 4.1 With XP x64, I was over-clocked almost 10% and TOTALLY ROCKED! With Vista Home Premium, over-clocking is out-of-the-question and I still freeze/lock-up/stop/shutdown daily - 'tis MOST annoying

Vista is more stable if you turn off the whole "glass" thing; but it is no faster than XP no matter what you do.

 

[Scotteq]

"Unstable"!?!?

If you're having problems with stability, then you have issues besides the OS. Full Stop. If the problem only occurs after you overclock, then your OC settings are not stable. What you need to do is determine the source of the issue. Fix that, and the OS will be stable again.

I've had Vista 64 running on a 25% Quad-Core processor overclock (fm 2.4 to 3.2Ghz), 60% Front Side Bus overclock (1066 to 1600), on Air, and near stock voltages for the last 6 months - Not a single crash. I'm telling you: If you're having problems with the OS after overclocking, it's not related to Vista. Go back and look at what you've done while tinkering around in the Bios.


For the OP: As you guessed already, I am very much pro-Vista. It's been very good to me, and I haven't had any troubles I couldn't solve myself by either digging through the book I bought for it or hitting up the web. Having said that: If/since you already have XP running on an older computer, there is little reason to switch to Vista. And there *are* issues with older hardware - Most makers did not bother to create drivers for their older stuff. Why?? Because they want you to buy a new one. And because it costs them money to write, test, and deploy new drivers. Money which will *not* come back to them in the form of sales. So by and large the various parts guys created new drivers (slowly...) for the parts they *had* to in order to meet their support contracts. No more. New parts? Of course. Old?? Not so much.

We'll all be on Vista sooner or later - But if you have XP, especially on a box a couple years old, then you really should stick with it until your next build. New OEM purchasers will get Vista anyhow... If you want to play with it. Or if you're like me and just want the new thing: There is a Vista Upgrade Adviser which you can download from Microsoft:
Download details: Windows Vista Upgrade Advisor
Install this. Run it. Run it again. Take it's advice seriously. It is quite accurate. If it says you'll have a problem with something - you will. If it says you might have a problem - You will likely "find" the issue sooner or later. So whatever it says to fix. Fix it.

If you want to play with V on the system you have now, buy another hard drive, set your comp up for dual booting, and give Vista it's own playground. I'd also advise not formatting the drive from within XP - Do so from a bootable disc/thumb drive and a C prompt.


If you're already running 32 bit Vista, there's not a whole lot of reason to go to 64. It's almost *exactly* the same. From a user perspective the biggest single benefit is to be able to address and fully utilize 4GB+ (up to 64GB for home users) of RAM. There's other differences, sure, but the ability to use more RAM is the primary reason users would want to make the switch. Besides that, as you user you get what is essentially the same OS with some more security related functionality.

Regarding the usage of "Major" programs: Know that Vista 64 includes the libraries needed to run 32 bit code. And 95% of the time it's completely transparent to the user whether a given program is running in 32 or 64 bit mode. There may be occasions where you need to specify a 'Compatibility Mode' - Right click the program icon and check the appropriate box on the 'Properties' tab. Easy.


If you're a graphic artist who somehow doesn't use a Mac, the Adobe has done almost nothing for Vista, and have flatly stated they don't intend to support V64 ever. Acrobat Reader works fine, tho. I also know that Macromedia don't have a 64 bit version of Flash - But I can tell you for a fact that you can install the 32 bit version of Flash on your 32 bit browser of choice and never notice the difference. Please note that I said "Browser of Choice" - The lastest versions of IE (of course - 32 and 64), Firefox/Thunderbird, Opera, all run on Vista 64 just like they would on a 32 bit OS. From a user perspective, there is no difference.

Games?? I have Bioshock, NWN1/2/Mask, The Witcher, Oblivion/Shivering/Knights, and WOW/Burning all installed and running on my computer - No crashes except for NWN2, which is hardly a stable game on XP either.

One other thing of note: No Application or driver issue (error/crash) has ever taken down Vista 64 as long as I've had it. I've been through pre-service pack XP, and let me tell ya: The difference is night and day. At the same point in it's development cycle as Vista is now, if an app so much as farted on XP the entire OS would crash. If a driver had a bug, Crash... And forget overclocking - unless your settings were *perfect* XP would endlessly crash. And sometimes, XP would just crash for no reason at all. It was bad enough that dedicated users started seeing Blue Screens in their sleep. Lay down, relax, start to drift off, and the last thing they'd see before oblivion was endless blue...

No, Vista (32 or 64 bit) is not as fast as XP SP2 - I's hugely more aggressive about managing system resources and has more overhead/background tasks to run. But looking at the two at the same stages in their respective development, Vista is better by far.

 

[Ferret]

Very well put-you could actually rename the topic thread and put your response in the Vista news section under a new topic. Thats some good advice!

 

[Archimedez]

Yes, unstable. Take a gander at the plethora of messages on this and other threads: Vista freezes; craches; locks-up' stops; reboots; etc. Denying that it doesn't happen only delays the eventual fix.

Further, if XP x64 ran great on this patform, and Linux Gutsy Gibbon runs great on this platform, but Vista DOESN'T run great on this patfrom; what do you suspect to be the culprit?

Don't get me wrong: I'm no Widnows-basher. But I'm also not a Microsoft bigot, either. I just want to get a decent STABLE OS for the money I spent.

 

[Archimedez]

Apparently I was not clear enough about my over-clocking.

My experieince is this: Vista is unstable with NO over-clocking at all - dead stock "default" settings across-the-board. It was my previous XP x64 configuration that would tolerate significant over-clocking, on exactly the same platform, with no problems at all.

 

[Ferret]

I have not had any of the problems yall are referring to. I am currently oc'd by 200mhz under vista 64. Its very stable and I have not had any hardware issues to date.

 

[Scotteq]

Archimedez - Like I said earlier - I have a Huge overclock going, and am perfectly stable.

If we're gong to help, we need *details* about what exactly the error codes are. What conditions it's crashing under, etc. Merely hollering that "It Sucks" doesn't do anyone any good.

We could link you thousands of similar posts about problems in XP - So what?? If there's an issue, you hunt it down and kill it. Doesn't matter what OS you are running: You don't just throw up your hands and rant all over the place. You identify the problem and work out the solution.

When you overclock, are you running Prime 95, Everest, or other torture testing program?? If so, then for how long?? Does it pass? If not, you have a problem with your overclock.




And so you know I'm not pulling your leg about the overclock:

--------[ EVEREST Ultimate Edition ]------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Version EVEREST v4.20.1170
Benchmark Module 2.3.212.0
Homepage Lavalys - Comprehensive IT Security and Management
Report Type Report Wizard
Computer SCOTT-PC
Generator Scott
Operating System Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate 6.0.6000 (Vista Retail)
Date 2008-01-05
Time 20:30


--------[ Summary ]-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Computer:
Computer Type ACPI x64-based PC
Operating System Microsoft Windows Vista Ultimate
OS Service Pack -
Internet Explorer 7.0.6000.16575
DirectX DirectX 10.0
Computer Name SCOTT-PC
User Name Scott
Logon Domain Scott-PC
Date / Time 2008-01-05 / 20:30

Motherboard:
CPU Type QuadCore Intel Core 2 Quad Q6600, 3200 MHz (8 x 400)
Motherboard Name DFI LANParty UT P35-T2R (3 PCI, 1 PCI-E x1, 3 PCI-E x16, 4 DDR2 DIMM, Audio, Dual Gigabit LAN, IEEE-1394)
Motherboard Chipset Intel Bearlake P35
System Memory 4096 MB (DDR2-800 DDR2 SDRAM)
BIOS Type Award (09/13/07)
Communication Port Communications Port (COM1)

Display:
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB)
Video Adapter NVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX (768 MB)
3D Accelerator nVIDIA GeForce 8800 GTX
Monitor Samsung SyncMaster 206BW/MagicSyncMaster CX206BW (Digital) [20" LCD] (HVFP102193)

Multimedia:
Audio Adapter Creative CA20K1 X-Fi Xtreme Fidelity Audio Processor

Storage:
IDE Controller Intel(R) ICH9 2 port Serial ATA Storage Controller 2 - 2926
IDE Controller Intel(R) ICH9 4 port Serial ATA Storage Controller 1 - 2920
IDE Controller Standard Dual Channel PCI IDE Controller
Storage Controller Microsoft iSCSI Initiator
Floppy Drive Floppy disk drive
Disk Drive ST31000340AS ATA Device (931 GB, IDE)
Optical Drive PHILIPS SPD3100L USB Device
Optical Drive PLEXTOR DVDR PX-810SA ATA Device (DVD+R9:10x, DVD-R9:10x, DVD+RW:18x/8x, DVD-RW:18x/6x, DVD-RAM:12x, DVD-ROM:16x, CD:40x/32x/40x DVD+RW/DVD-RW/DVD-RAM)
SMART Hard Disks Status OK

Partitions:
C: (NTFS) 953866 MB (732805 MB free)
Total Size 931.5 GB (715.6 GB free)

 

[Archimedez]

I've found another site that is a bit more objective in their views. I'll be unsubscribing now.

 

[Scotteq]

More "Objective"???


I've repeatedly asked you to tell us what the problem is. Nobody can help you get it fixed if you won't do that.

 

[depthofperception]

Scotteq,

" If you're a graphic artist who somehow doesn't use a Mac, the Adobe has done almost nothing for Vista, and have flatly stated they don't intend to support V64 ever."

I am an artist of many different fields and use almost the entire Adobe suite, is Adobe completely unsupported on Vista 64 or will it operate normally just not enabled by the 64 bit os and processor?

Thanks!

 

[Scotteq]

Scotteq,

" If you're a graphic artist who somehow doesn't use a Mac, the Adobe has done almost nothing for Vista, and have flatly stated they don't intend to support V64 ever."

I am an artist of many different fields and use almost the entire Adobe suite, is Adobe completely unsupported on Vista 64 or will it operate normally just not enabled by the 64 bit os and processor?

Thanks!

Acrobat runs on Vista 64. But outside of that, my understanding is that Adobe will only be supporting 32 bit versions of Vista. Certainly anytime in the near future. You may or may not be able to run them on 64, whether in compatibility mode or not. I don't know -for sure. My mother us a graphic artist as well, but she uses a Mac.

I did take a few minutes to look through the product requirements Adobe has posted on their site: I see they do support 32 bit Vista. But Acrobat is the only app I see who's requirements specifically '64 bit Vista'. After Effects, Cold Fusion, Creative Suite, Dreamweaver, Flash, Flex.... do say "Vista" but no 64.

I suspect most *may* run on Vista 64, since 32 bit Vista apps run on Vista 64 just fine. But I also suspect that functionality may be limited, and/or there may be errors using their stuff like that. And since Adobe hasn't said they'd fix it, I also suspect there might be more work needed than just "normal" bug chasing. But like I said - I don't use the stuff myself. I just remember reading the press release: an XP~troll was having a great time with it on another site.

 

[depthofperception]

Thank you. I believe you have answered my question.

 

[phats_O]

[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]I realize this refers to CS2, but it seems likely this info would hold true for newer versions, too.[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]quote from Memory allocation and usage (Photoshop CS2)[/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif][/FONT]
[FONT=Geneva, Arial, Helvetica, sans-serif]"When you run Photoshop CS2 on a computer with a 64-bit processor (such as a G5, Intel Xeon processor with EM64T, AMD Athlon 64, or Opteron processor), and running a 64-bit version of the operating system (Mac OS v10.3 or higher, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition), that has 4 GB or more of RAM, Photoshop will use 3 GB for it's image data. You can see the actual amount of RAM Photoshop can use in the Maximum Used By Photoshop number when you set the Maximum Used by Photoshop slider in the Memory & Image Cache preference to 100%. The RAM above the 100% used by Photoshop, which is from approximately 3 GB to 3.7 GB, can be used directly by Photoshop plug-ins (some plug-ins need large chunks of contiguous RAM), filters, actions, etc. If you have more than 4 GB (to 6 GB (Windows) or 8 GB (Mac OS)), the RAM above 4 GB is used by the operating system as a cache for the Photoshop scratch disk data. Data that previously was written directly to the hard disk by Photoshop, is now cached in this high RAM before being written to the hard disk by the operating system. If you are working with files large enough to take advantage of these extra 2 GB of RAM, the RAM cache can speed performance of Photoshop." [/FONT]

 

[jankerson]

first of all Archimedez , **REMOVED**

I would just like to second the praise of Vista., I feel its gotten a bad rap and I signed up just for this post.. I use a 32 bit vista, since I wont need more than 4 gigs of 667 memory, I've got an athlon x2 4800 I picked up for 89$.. and I have to say my machine is ripping, vista never crashes and I run photoshop cs3, illustrator cs3 and visual studio 2008 / flash cs3... and it rips!!! it almost opens things before I click them its so dang fast.. so vists is definately there..
regarding a mac, well to each his own.. when I can build a mac for $400 I might... but I was an avid XP user, and while I love XP too, I'd only use it on older machines, XP rips too...

also note my other machien has a pentium 4 2.6 ghz with 1.2x gigs of memory, with some cheap visiontek dual DVI /HDMI out video card which crashes all the time, but vista just lets me know, the system recovers, no blue screen, jsut a warning that my driver died... NICE JOB VISTA!! and I'm streaming movies off that box and I've never had any problems... I [heart] VISTA!!!


EDITED BY: Brink