Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
[155 byte] By [PredicateNormative] at [2007-11-20 10:12:28] 
If you were going to get Windows Vista Ultimate... which one would you go for? My inclination is to go for the 64bit version, but I'm not sure really.
# 1 Re: Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
Been there myself recently when I decided to get a new machine at home, see http://www.dev-archive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430402The article in post #5 actually made me go for 32-bit business version (don't need media center for instance). Even though 64-bit version had some nice features the issues regarding not being able to install unsigned drivers and so on as well as the memory hunger (read in other articles) scared me off. Now have 32-bit version installed for a few days and so far so good. A bit more memory hungry than XP and a gigantic disk footprint but very graphical appealing.
S_M_A at 2007-11-10 3:40:00 >
# 2 Re: Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
I still have XP Home, I wont upgrade to Vista until its been out for awhile. At least then maybe theyll have fixed some of the bugs! Is it true that Mac's can run anything that Windows can? If that is the case, I may just migrate from Windows to Apple.RaleTheBlade at 2007-11-10 3:41:00 >
# 3 Re: Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
Been there myself recently when I decided to get a new machine at home, see http://www.dev-archive.com/forum/showthread.php?t=430402The article in post #5 actually made me go for 32-bit business version (don't need media center for instance). Even though 64-bit version had some nice features the issues regarding not being able to install unsigned drivers and so on as well as the memory hunger (read in other articles) scared me off. Now have 32-bit version installed for a few days and so far so good. A bit more memory hungry than XP and a gigantic disk footprint but very graphical appealing.
Thanks for your reply and for the link... maybe I will go for the 32bit version. I'm more concerned with program compatibility than anything else. The driver part isn't too much of a problem for me (I tried Vista 64bit RC1 and that detected all my hardware fine), and also the memory thing, although is a bit of a worry, it isn't the end of the world... I can always buy more RAM, but, if the 64bit version has more issues installing/running existing programs than the 32bit version, then I'll most likely go for the 32bit version.
PredicateNormative at 2007-11-10 3:42:00 >
# 4 Re: Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
I still have XP Home, I wont upgrade to Vista until its been out for awhile. At least then maybe theyll have fixed some of the bugs! Is it true that Mac's can run anything that Windows can? If that is the case, I may just migrate from Windows to Apple.You'll need to check this, but I believe that if the Mac is one of the new ones with a Core2 processor, then you can install Windows as a primary bootable operating system, therefore you will be able to run all Windows applications, including games - Again you will need to double check this. At any case, you can install Windows and run it via Parallel under the Mac OS (Parallel is a bit like Virtual Machine, hence you will not have DirectX access if you use Parallel to run Windows - i.e. no games, but you will be able to install and run Windows apps).
PredicateNormative at 2007-11-10 3:43:05 >
# 5 Re: Vista Ultimate 32bit or 64bit?
Macs can run windows in two different ways. However, using virtualization, there is some performance degradation. It is now minimal after the Intel Core Migration. Personally, I think that buying a Mac to run Windows defeats the whole purpose of buying a Mac. Anything you get software-wise for a PC, you can get an equivalent for a Mac. Granted, your price will be more expensive.1. Primary boot using Boot Camp. Windows can run completely natively on a Mac.
2. Using virtualization. You can run windows virtually in a couple of ways.
Crossover Mac (http://www.codeweavers.com/products/cxmac/)
Parallels Desktop (http://www.parallels.com/)
VMWare Fusion (http://www.vmware.com/products/fusion/)
PeejAvery at 2007-11-10 3:43:58 >
