Travel Technology - Vista Ultimate 32 / 64 bit - questions

Please bear with me & this stupid question. Does the Vista Ultimate OS operate in both 32 and 64 bit modes or are these two different versions of the same OS?

Ive seen some ThinkPad T61P machines that run both Vista Ultimate 32 and 64... but Im unclear if its the same machine & OS configured differently or if they are two different things altogether. I cant seem to find two versions of the laptop configuration on the IBM/Lenovo website so Im sort of confused.

Yes... Ive heard that Vista is a RAM hog... but if Im willing to bite the bullet and get a laptop with 4 Gigas of RAM, wont this darned Vista be stable?

Final question.... it seems that you dont get the 4 Gigs of RAM recognized unless you have Vista running at 64 bits... is this correct?

Many thanks!

Alex (Gaucho100K)

There are two different versions of Vista Ultimate, one is 32-bit, the other is 64-bit. At least when you purchase the retail box for Vista Ultimate, you get install discs for both and you can choose which one you want to install.

For Intel based laptops, I believe you need one with the Santa Rosa chipset to be able to fully use 4GB of RAM, 64-bit versions of Vista will not make a difference as it was a chipset limitation.

Don't bother with the 64 bit version. For a user like yourself 32 bit is just fine and will save you a lot of hassle.

Why would you need 4Gb anyway? 1Gb is fine, 2 is great, but unless you are doing something really massive you will never need 4Gb.

Vista actually uses less ram than XP used to do with me.

Thanks for the replies...

Scott, isnt the 64 bit version faster for gaming and watching movies, etc? If not (or the difference is not noticeable), then I will just go with the 32 bit version. However, I thought that the 64 bit version of Vista was much more stable. I thought Vista was a huge memory hog... isnt that what everybody is saying all over the internet...?

Thanks for the replies...

Scott, isnt the 64 bit version faster for gaming and watching movies, etc? If not (or the difference is not noticeable), then I will just go with the 32 bit version. However, I thought that the 64 bit version of Vista was much more stable. I thought Vista was a huge memory hog... isnt that what everybody is saying all over the internet...?

It isn't faster for the kind of stuff 99% of people do. It will only be faster with applications specifically written to take advantage of the 64 bit processing.

It certainly isn't more stable as many of the drivers for 64bit are not very well written.

It isn't faster for the kind of stuff 99% of people do. It will only be faster with applications specifically written to take advantage of the 64 bit processing.

It certainly isn't more stable as many of the drivers for 64bit are not very well written.I spent part of last week at a conference with one of Microsoft's academic liaisons for the northeast U.S. The subject came up when one of the others at our dinner table said he had problems with 64-bit Vista. (It's dangerous to be from Microsoft at a conference: you're a natural target, so you can become a punching bag. G.W. took it well.) He basically echoed what ScottC said, but a bit more strongly: many of the 64-bit drivers don't even exist yet. He's a Vista fan in general, but says to go with the 32-bit version today unless you have a specific reason to use 64.

Thanks very much guys... very helpul !! ^ ^ ^

I spent part of last week at a conference with one of Microsoft's academic liaisons for the northeast U.S. The subject came up when one of the others at our dinner table said he had problems with 64-bit Vista. (It's dangerous to be from Microsoft at a conference: you're a natural target, so you can become a punching bag. G.W. took it well.) He basically echoed what ScottC said, but a bit more strongly: many of the 64-bit drivers don't even exist yet. He's a Vista fan in general, but says to go with the 32-bit version today unless you have a specific reason to use 64.

Last time I installed Vista 64 bit it took me a little over a month to get it up and running correctly. Especially things like audio, video and Bluetooth are a major pain to get working right, and even then it's mainly with hacked together (often even bootleg) driver packages. But the person in question insisted on wanting it... :rolleyes: :D

I get the message... stay away from 64 bit until further notice.

It isn't faster for the kind of stuff 99% of people do. It will only be faster with applications specifically written to take advantage of the 64 bit processing.....



I agree 100%, BTW, this is true for all "new" hardware for the last 100 years:(
I little OT: What about this dual processors? Are there common (single) programs (Outlook, MS Word, Quicken, MS Internet Explorer, Google ...) that use both processors. I guess, each applications has to be specifically written to take advantage of the dual processors. If this is the case, I rather want a fast(er) single processor (and a fast(er) disk, some of those hybrid disks) .... I have almost no multiprocessing/multitasking running on my PC (unless some of my applications are written to do multitasking).

I agree 100%, BTW, this is true for all "new" hardware for the last 100 years:(
I little OT: What about this dual processors? Are there common (single) programs (Outlook, MS Word, Quicken, MS Internet Explorer, Google ...) that use both processors. I guess, each applications has to be specifically written to take advantage of the dual processors. If this is the case, I rather want a fast(er) single processor (and a fast(er) disk, some of those hybrid disks) .... I have almost no multiprocessing/multitasking running on my PC (unless some of my applications are written to do multitasking).You might be surprised at how much multi-tasking goes on behind the scenes - not just with Windows Vista, but with any modern OS. Some of it is under your control, like how often your e-mail programs checks for messages, or if you're running an IM program that notifies you when someone wants to say "hi." Some of it isn't. Getting all that stuff off the processor that's doing whatever you think you're working on is worth a good deal.

You might be surprised at how much multi-tasking goes on behind the scenes - not just with Windows Vista, but with any modern OS. Some of it is under your control, like how often your e-mail programs checks for messages, or if you're running an IM program that notifies you when someone wants to say "hi." Some of it isn't. Getting all that stuff off the processor that's doing whatever you think you're working on is worth a good deal.

Thanks Efrem:
Interesting.. still, I'll wait until 2008 before I buy a dual processor with Vista. My bottle neck seems to be the disk. For me the way to go, is an affordable hybrid drive ... The hybrid disk drive is a new advance in disk drive technology that permits significant power savings, shorter boot and resume times for the operating system, and longer mean time between failures (MTBFs) for the drive

Regarding 32 bit versus 64 bit, I believe ScottC is 100% correct, but read this

http://www.microsoft.com/windowsxp/64bit/facts/top10.mspx

Still, I believe Gaucho100K is not the typical 64 bit user:rolleyes:.... to do something like this:

The performance of 64-bit computing offers advantages in fields such as automobile and airplane design by allowing engineers to create larger, more complex models. Engineers can use simulation software to analyze the effects of airflow, stress, and heat on the materials of a car or airplane, and then study the results to improve overall product design. Likewise, 64-bit computing benefits digital content creators, including three-dimensional (3-D) animators, digital artists, and game developers, who can significantly reduce the time they spend digitally rendering 3-D models. In the areas of scientific and high-performance computing, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition can aid in oil and gas exploration, seismic analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and scientific visualization, among other applications.

Thanks Efrem:
Interesting.. still, I'll wait until 2008 before I buy a dual processor with Vista. My bottle neck seems to be the disk. For me the way to go, is an affordable hybrid drive ... The hybrid disk drive is a new advance in disk drive technology that permits significant power savings, shorter boot and resume times for the operating system, and longer mean time between failures (MTBFs) for the drive

Vista has a feature called "Ready Boost" where you can plug in a USB flash drive and get many of the same benefits. Personally I would wait until the drive technology has had time to mature before trying a hybrid disk drive. From what I've heard, the power savings from such devices has not really materialized yet.

Still, I believe Gaucho100K is not the typical 64 bit user :rolleyes: ....


Er... yes, Im pretty much IT illiterate, but, why rub it in...? :confused:

Thanks Efrem:
Interesting.. still, I'll wait until 2008 before I buy a dual processor with Vista.I've been running dual-processor Windows boxes for years. I would never go back to a single processor box. Aside from the performance advantages (the OS will schedule which process runs on which processor so you can do multiple things at once without having to wait), there is one reason why two processors are really desirable. When Windows Explorer crashes, using 100% of the CPU it only eats up one so you can safely shut down. Pretty sad, eh?

As a 64-bit XP user I can safely say that the advice regarding drivers and 64 bit Windows above is spot on.

Vista has a feature called "Ready Boost" where you can plug in a USB flash drive and get many of the same benefits. Personally I would wait until the drive technology has had time to mature before trying a hybrid disk drive. From what I've heard, the power savings from such devices has not really materialized yet.

Have you been using this feature yourself and any comments on how much of a difference you notice for standard-sort of uses?

I was thinking of trying it out but just haven't gotten around to doing it on my Vista Ultimate machines.

I popped a 4Gb readyboost "ready" USB drive onto my Vista box, I can't say I really see a big difference, I have WD Raptor drives already and defrag weekly...

I popped a 4Gb readyboost "ready" USB drive onto my Vista box, I can't say I really see a big difference, I have WD Raptor drives already and defrag weekly...

It's claimed (by MS?) that it doesn't make too much of a difference if the computer has 1+ GB of RAM.

When Windows Explorer crashes, using 100% of the CPU it only eats up one so you can safely shut down. Pretty sad, eh?

Vista seems a bit better than XP for this. I've had the Windows Explorer crash but it manages to restart. No hard pull of the plug restarts.

I was planning on asking this question anyways, so perhaps this thread is as good an opportunity as any.

I’ve been actively trying to avoid Vista altogether. But it is getting harder & harder to get a machine without it pre-loaded these days. But crunch time is coming for me as I will have the need soon to buy another Laptop.

Reading this & other threads/forums, it would seem that there’s quite a few of you out there on Vista these days.

So guys…….. should I continue my “Anti-Vista” crusade & buy a PC with XP, or should I bite the bullet, become another sheep & succumb to Vista ???

(FYI, the biggest use for the new laptop asides from the usual WP, SS & Email work, would be running AutoCAD 2007 & Photoshop (CS2 & Elements 5))

I don't see any reason to avoid Vista anymore. I've used it for a month now and it works as good as, even better than, XP did.

I was planning on asking this question anyways, so perhaps this thread is as good an opportunity as any.

I’ve been actively trying to avoid Vista altogether. But it is getting harder & harder to get a machine without it pre-loaded these days. But crunch time is coming for me as I will have the need soon to buy another Laptop.

Reading this & other threads/forums, it would seem that there’s quite a few of you out there on Vista these days.

So guys…….. should I continue my “Anti-Vista” crusade & buy a PC with XP, or should I bite the bullet, become another sheep & succumb to Vista ???

(FYI, the biggest use for the new laptop asides from the usual WP, SS & Email work, would be running AutoCAD 2007 & Photoshop (CS2 & Elements 5))

What exactly are your reasons for being "anti-vista"?

I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it without actually having used it.

I put 4GB in my new Vista machine (significant Photoshop CS3 work) and it only can use about 3.2GB. If you want to load up, save some money and stick with 3GB.

Lots of posts on Google on why this is - only 4GB of OS-addressable space, so video card, other peripherals, etc., take away from RAM availability. The RAM is there, the OS just can't talk to it.

Vista is a pita learning where everything is, but I'll get used to it and see no reason to avoid it. My work laptop is going there soon, along with thousands of co-workers.

What exactly are your reasons for being "anti-vista"?

I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it without actually having used it.

I am one of them! Have not used it, but I am still reading about some vista problems .. even after the new release.

May be I am totally wrong (waiting any longer), but I am afraid to run in some problems, after I installed all applications on a new vista box.... and then hear "I told you so!" I guess you can handle this. I not! Looks to me that XP and Vista are as complex and complicated as a Unix box.

Bottom line: I wait!

Er... yes, Im pretty much IT illiterate, but, why rub it in...? :confused:

I apologize, didn't want to hard your feelings! Actually, because of some of your postings I can see, that you are *NOT* an IT illiterate! Next, when I remember it right, you studied at an engineering college in BA!? That's not for dummies;)

But do you any of this?

The performance of 64-bit computing offers advantages in fields such as automobile and airplane design by allowing engineers to create larger, more complex models. Engineers can use simulation software to analyze the effects of airflow, stress, and heat on the materials of a car or airplane, and then study the results to improve overall product design. Likewise, 64-bit computing benefits digital content creators, including three-dimensional (3-D) animators, digital artists, and game developers, who can significantly reduce the time they spend digitally rendering 3-D models. In the areas of scientific and high-performance computing, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition can aid in oil and gas exploration, seismic analysis, computational fluid dynamics, and scientific visualization, among other applications.

I popped a 4Gb readyboost "ready" USB drive onto my Vista box, I can't say I really see a big difference, I have WD Raptor drives already and defrag weekly...

Now try running a quicktime movie, and watch the usb drive.

Readyboost suuuucks.

I installed SP1 on Vista 2 weeks ago, and it has improved some of the things that annoyed me most, mainly file operation perfomance. But even without SP1 it has been tremendously stable on my machine.

I installed SP1 on Vista 2 weeks ago, and it has improved some of the things that annoyed me most, mainly file operation perfomance.

It's in BETA! I was looking around for it and was wondering why mine didn't semi-auto install.



But even without SP1 it has been tremendously stable on my machine.


I agree. I've had my machine for 6 months now and wouldn't have had to shut down/reboot if it wasn't for adding new software or hardware.

I put 4GB in my new Vista machine (significant Photoshop CS3 work) and it only can use about 3.2GB. If you want to load up, save some money and stick with 3GB.

Lots of posts on Google on why this is - only 4GB of OS-addressable space, so video card, other peripherals, etc., take away from RAM availability. The RAM is there, the OS just can't talk to it.

Vista is a pita learning where everything is, but I'll get used to it and see no reason to avoid it. My work laptop is going there soon, along with thousands of co-workers.

I think the problem is the 4 GB is split into 2 GB for OS and 2 GB for applications.

I think the problem is the 4 GB is split into 2 GB for OS and 2 GB for applications.That's not it. The problem is that graphics memory, and other devices that use memory-mapped input/output, are addressed as part of the 4GB address space - typically about 1 GB. They don't use physical RAM, but since they use the addresses that would access it, the RAM itself cannot be used.

There is no work-around with 32-bit Vista, since any 32-bit OS requires addresses used for memory-mapped i/o to be within the first 4 GB. It may be possible to get around the problem with 64-bit Vista, but that depends on the processor, on the chipset and on the BIOS. The processor has to support the x64 instruction set, the chipset has to support at least 8GB of RAM, and the BIOS must support memory remapping (which goes by a variety of names). Take away any one of these, and 64-bit Vista can't do a thing about this problem.

What exactly are your reasons for being "anti-vista"?

I'm just curious why so many people seem to hate it without actually having used it.

I have just heard so many horror stories about Vista !

Things like drivers for your existing peripherals not working properly on Vista, requiring you to download & install patches between the drivers & the OS. Which to my mind is a cobble job & all you are doing is putting in more links in the chain to break.

Then there’s reports of applications that won’t run properly on Vista.

I have Photoshop CS2 running on my XP machine. An old release now I know, but it does all I want, but I’ve heard there are issues with it & Vista.

I’ve recently got AutoCAD 2007, but have heard that Autodesk say that 2008 will be targeted at Vista, but meanwhile 2007 “should” run ok on Vista. But again, will it require more patches ??

The list goes on & on.

I’ve written a similar post on an Automotive Forum I’m a member off & pretty much with out exception the response came back in the negative. Whereas I find it interesting to read here that more of you are pro Vista.

I guess I’m just being chicken here. I’ve never, ever had what I could call a stable windows experience over the years. But find I can get on with XP & find it very robust, compared to what I went through over the years.

So I’m taking the stance that if it isn’t broke, then don’t fix it. But just when I found a Windows version I could get on with, MS have gone & released Vista, which seems to be fraught with issues. Now I find myself needing to purchase an additional Laptop, but all the retail outlets only sell machines with Vista pre-loaded & it’s getting harder & harder to get XP anymore.

The last thing I want is to be a big brave boy, go out & get Vista & spend weeks struggling to get things going again. Or worse have to & buy new versions of my applications.

To quote USAFAN “May be I am totally wrong (waiting any longer), but I am afraid to run in some problems, after I installed all applications on a new vista box.... and then hear "I told you so!"

You can still buy laptops with XP online. Why not do that?

I don't see any reason to avoid Vista anymore. I've used it for a month now and it works as good as, even better than, XP did.I've been running a laptop with Vista Business on it since January. The following problems are chronic, common and unacknowledged by Microsoft:

1. Wireless connections lose DNS connectivity, resulting in dropping of internet connections. (partial solution -- works sometimes, but not always -- disable TCP/IP v. 6, hack the registry to disable DHCP Forced Broadcast flag, disable wireless NIC power management, turn of automatic search for preferred networks)

2. Wireless connections lose DHCP connectivity, resulting in loss of lan access. (same partial solution as above)

3. Windows Explorer (the file manager, not the internet browser) crashes when copying large files or multiple files (solution: use another file manager, like the free UltraExplorer).

4. Slow file transfers over networks (partial solution: install latest patches, but still far slower than an XP machine)

5. Inability to see XP machines, NAS and other lan-based hardware (solution: install NetBios over TCP/IP on all machines, install Microsoft patch for XP machines, wait 5-10 minutes for the Vista machine to "settle," access the lan hardware by IP address)

6. Vista "loses" the wireless NIC, i.e. Vista can't see any wireless networks, even though they're there (solution: disable and then re-enable the wireless NIC in Device Manager)

Other considerations:

7. Windows Defender, Microsoft's anti-spyware, anti-virus program, is garbage and must be disabled and replaced with a 3rd party app (I use AVG -- I used to also use SpySweeper but it caused BSOD crashes).

8. Windows Firewall, while not garbage, is enabled in one direction only as the default. You can enable outbound protection, but it's almost impossible to control. I replaced it with the AVG product.

9. Many programs that run under XP will also run under Vista. However, there are some tricks to installing them (involving setting compatibility level for the installation executable, and running at the administrator security level). Microsoft Office 2003 is one example of a common program that will not install out-of-the-box, but will install with a few tweaks.

10. Microsoft's enhanced security is intrusive and annoying. Particularly problematic is UAC, which I have disabled completely. Also annoying is -- I don't recall the acronym, I think it's DEP -- in which the OS decides whether a program can run or not. That also requires tweaking for relatively innocuous programs.

11. Finding Vista-compatible drivers for legacy hardware can be a challenge. There are third party solutions, e.g. VueScan will let almost any scanner run under Vista, but I've had to replace some hardware, e.g. a USB-to-SCSI adapter, a USB-to-serial adapter and some other things.

These problems notwithstanding, I actually kind of like Vista -- at least enough so I haven't taken advantage of the Microsoft "downgrade" policy and tried to install XP on my laptop (though that would entail other issues, as Sony Vaio's BIOS checks for OS version when installing drivers and won't install drivers from one OS if the machine is hard-coded to another, even if it is fully compatible -- I'd need to find third-party drivers for all the hardware on the laptop).

I would not recommend Vista to a completely novice user, since so many kludges and work-arounds are required to obtain basic functionality. I would also recommend waiting until Service Pack 1 is released sometime in First Quarter '08 as, hopefully, it will address a lot of the bugs and will also roll-up many, many megabytes of patches that Microsoft has already released.

I also wouldn't run Vista on any machine without, at least, a Core 2 Duo processor (or the AMD equivalent), 2 gigabytes of RAM and with a Vista-compatible graphics card with at least 256-512 meg of RAM

A friend has a laptop that shipped with Vista, and is having frequent blue screens and the dropped wireless connections.

I'm running Vista (upgrade) on my desktop and it's relatively stable. I did it more as a learning aid, as I do computer support.

I've encountered most of the problems listed above. I've also experienced bad performance with QuickTime video on SATA drives. Hotfix KB932094 (http://support.microsoft.com/kb/932094) addresses it.

The problem is that there are a bunch of hotfixes you may require to get a stable system, which makes waiting for SP1 appealing.

Another issue with the drivers is the level of support. For example, I have an HP 932c printer. Vista comes with a generic driver for it. The HP driver for XP has extra features like double-sided printing, preview, and forced B&W, but it isn't available for Vista. HP's response, of course, is to buy a new printer.

Well now, having just read though PTravel’s post a couple of times, what can I say except……………

That’s that then, I’m going to continue to steer well clear of Vista for the foreseeable future :eek:

That's not it. The problem is that graphics memory, and other devices that use memory-mapped input/output, are addressed as part of the 4GB address space - typically about 1 GB. They don't use physical RAM, but since they use the addresses that would access it, the RAM itself cannot be used.

There is no work-around with 32-bit Vista, since any 32-bit OS requires addresses used for memory-mapped i/o to be within the first 4 GB. It may be possible to get around the problem with 64-bit Vista, but that depends on the processor, on the chipset and on the BIOS. The processor has to support the x64 instruction set, the chipset has to support at least 8GB of RAM, and the BIOS must support memory remapping (which goes by a variety of names). Take away any one of these, and 64-bit Vista can't do a thing about this problem.

Have a look at this link. http://support.microsoft.com/kb/940105