What is Digg?156 Comments
- cathpah, on 08/04/2008, -5/+96Damn right. I'm running vista x64 and I'm amazed to say, it works wonderfully. I'm a pro photographer who works with large filesizes regularly, and thus the ability to utilize 8gb of ram and soon be able to utilize the upcoming Photoshop CS4 x64 is downright huge.
- Hortnon, on 08/05/2008, -3/+86Dugg for correctly placing the blame with Canon...
- inactive, on 08/05/2008, -1/+80I would use it if my printer and scanner had working x64 drivers. Damn you Canon
- Swil, on 08/04/2008, -8/+48Wow, so a company updated the operating system for hardware they build and had all the drivers for the components they supply ready?
Impressive. Unlike those slimes at Microsoft, not immediately having new drivers for every piece of hardware people expect to work with Windows suddenly ready. - zephyr42, on 08/04/2008, -3/+41'bout ***** time, I've been using XP Pro 64bit edition since it came out... well almost (had to wait for video drivers)
I can't wait for legacy 32 bit viruses and spyware to be (mostly) obselete. I really hope that Windows 7 is a 64bit only OS, with like XP virtualization. - dshPls, on 08/05/2008, -0/+36Same here, everything cranks so fast on x64, it's a no brainer if you want to max your system out.
- Indrid, on 08/05/2008, -3/+30If you're running a system with more than 3 gigs of RAM, there really is no reason not to run Vista 64. My only gripe is the separation of Program Files and Program Files (x64).
- kmoed, on 08/05/2008, -3/+24What programs?
I've been running Vista 64 for well over a year and love it to death. The only application incompatibility I have is with Pro Tools, I still have to dual boot for that. Absolutely everything else runs perfectly. - estvir, on 08/05/2008, -0/+20Hey, we're talking about the 64-bit version of VISTA, not XP.
- Nightfall, on 08/05/2008, -0/+20I have to agree as well.
The only thing holding X64 back in the day were a couple things.
1. Non-existent or badly coded drivers
2. badly coded programs
In the last 2 years, these problems started working themselves out. New hardware is now released that is x64 compliant with drivers that work on x64 systems. Even the 32 bit software that is released will work on x64 without a hitch. That wasn't the case about 3 years ago. Its good to see 64 bit version coming with the 32 bit software that you buy now.
Last year when I built my new PC, I was hesitant to load X64 Vista on it, but I did. Today, I have probably the best Windows system I could have built. 8gb of RAM is awesome when I play games or edit large photos in CS3. I couldn't be happier with it.
If you plan on running X64, here is my advice. Make sure your hardware is x64 compliant and you can get good drivers for it. Get 8gb of ram minimum. The more the better and RAM is getting cheaper all the time. Lastly, check the applications you want to run for X64 issues. - MasterChi, on 08/05/2008, -0/+18I'm pretty sure it will be. I know Microsoft has already stated that Windows Server 2008 is the last 32bit server OS they will make so they will probably follow suit with Windows 7.
- roosterjm2k2, on 08/05/2008, -0/+17You're XP sucked because you had 1 too many bits... it was crowding the place up.
- Hortnon, on 08/05/2008, -1/+17I love my 4 GB of RAM, personally. That's the biggest reason to upgrade right now, IMO.
- xelloss, on 08/05/2008, -1/+15Been running Vista 64 bit for about a month now and have had no problems what so ever. Every game or program I want to run, runs fine with Vista 64 bit. Hopefully by people having great success with 64 bit, software developers and manufactures can finally get out of the 32 bit age.
- Hortnon, on 08/05/2008, -1/+14So? If it's idle, how is that impacting your usage? The swap file is there for a reason, in any case.
- SteveMax, on 08/05/2008, -0/+12Tezdoll, a 32 bit OS can access a total of 4.0GB of memory. This includes the BIOS, peripherals and (most importantly nowadays) the video RAM. Build a system with 4.0GB of RAM and a 1.0GB video card and the processor will only be able to address 3.0GB of your RAM under a 32 bit OS. The limit of addressable memory under a 64-bit OS that uses full 64-bit pointers is exactly 2^64 bytes, or 16777216 TB. Don't expect to hit that barrier anytime soon, as the energy required to generate this much information is many orders of magnitude higher than what a household can use in some thousands of years.
- estvir, on 08/05/2008, -0/+11Mac isn't completely 64-bit and 64-bit Linux distros are still treated as second class citizens. Microsoft also had a 64-bit version of XP before Mac OS 'switched' and back than 64-bit Linux distros were treated as.. hell, did they exist?
Every company has an eye on the future and an eye on the past. Also, MS does not need to 'start over' nor dump the 32-bit version, that's an idiotic thing to do or suggest.
You're a moron. It's embarassing that you have a positive score for your comment, are Digg users truly that stupid and is their incessant hate against 'M$' really that toward? - ejdmoo, on 08/05/2008, -1/+12Welcome to caching (amongst other things, admittedly). Would you rather it leave things on the disk, and have *empty* RAM?
As long as it performs well, don't worry about your free memory. It's a poor metric for a modern OS. - Wartz, on 08/05/2008, -0/+11you dont need google desktop for vista, the search that is built in completely trashes google's offering
- estvir, on 08/05/2008, -1/+12Did you even read the article? Moron.
- mikelieman, on 08/05/2008, -2/+12The STANDARD is to install Program Files into Program Files.
Having TWO 'standard' locations is... Well... Microsoft at it's best. - slainbyte, on 08/05/2008, -2/+12as ram is cheap I don't see this is a problem. All i know is that it runs fantastic for me, I have never had an issue with x64. ;)
- estvir, on 08/05/2008, -4/+14Mac OS isn't 'true' 64-bit though and it wasn't seemless.
The masses are buying Vista64 PCs with no knowledge and they too, do not notice any real differences. - CaptainChad, on 08/05/2008, -0/+9Nobody's mentioned that mass adoption of 64-bit systems will also solve the Y2038 problem without any fuss, as the "time_t" type will go from 32 bits to 64 bits.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Y2038 - estvir, on 08/05/2008, -1/+10I thought Canon had been fairly good when it comes to Vista in general and 64-bit drivers? I've been using a MP130 at home under Vista64 for a long time and Canon seemed to be one of the first to provide Vista drivers.. and GOOD ones too.
- konstructiv, on 08/05/2008, -0/+9I've been using Vista HP x64 for several months and wouldn't go back to an x32 OS for anybody. The benchmarks demonstrate that it starts up and performs faster than Vista x32, I've suffered no 64-bit related compatibilities whatsoever (which surprised me because some of my hardware is quite old (YMMV)), and I find that an OS being able to address more than 3GB RAM is very useful where you can find x64 apps... which is the main problem really.
It's pretty scandalous that Adobe hasn't produced an x64 Flash Player for example, given how long x64 versions of Windows and Linux have been around. The ubiquitous nature of Flash, and the lack of a plugin is preventing migration to existing x64 browsers. (A 32 bit browser cannot run 64 bit plugins.) - inactive, on 08/05/2008, -3/+12Yeah, but applications generally launch instantly, where as applications take a long time to load on linux and OSX. On balance I would rather applications launce near instantly than have that gig of ram.
- solidus636, on 08/05/2008, -0/+9Alright, thanks a lot guys.
Time for a format and an install of Vista x64. - Wartz, on 08/05/2008, -1/+9You have the naming scheme backwareds
http://img221.imageshack.us/img221/6939/wrongce9.j ...
but I agree, still a silly idea. - solidus636, on 08/05/2008, -1/+9*****.
I really want to switch to 64 since I've got 4 gigs of ram, but I've heard that some programs don't work with x64 and I can't find a legitimate article comparing 32-bit and 64-bit.
Anyone have any reasons?
/ honest question. - JoeVet, on 08/05/2008, -0/+8That's not really a problem since x64 can run 32 bit programs. You don't lose anything going 64 and you gain better memory handling and the ability to utilize 64 bit programs as they become available. I see no problem.
- Murdats, on 08/05/2008, -1/+8you can 'fix' this by disabling superfetch, but that would just cause your programs to load slower and for you to see a smaller number on your resource stats.
- konstructiv, on 08/05/2008, -4/+11Why does that bother you?
- TimOgg, on 08/05/2008, -1/+8at least try to understand instead of seeing an opportunity so praise the "mighty" apple.
32 bit windows (Vista or XP) can only address 4Gb of ram because of the limitations of the 32 bit architecture.
It has nothing to do with creating more versions for marketing.
Anyone else please correct me if i am wrong. - Wartz, on 08/05/2008, -0/+6The reason Microsoft got so big was because they offered a relatively cheap and easy to program for OS that was also very backwards compatible.
- gamelord12, on 08/05/2008, -0/+6That's not true. I had 64-bit Vista when it was in its RC1 stage, and I got 64-bit Vista through newegg less than 2 weeks after it launched. Maybe pre-built vendors only had 32-bit Vista, but that was probably just so they didn't confuse consumers.
- Giga, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5That's 1.21 GW...
- inactive, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5Man, Ive just used the media bays for all my cameras for a long time now...
- Lexcyn, on 08/05/2008, -1/+6I've been using Vista x64 since day one. No issues. :)
- iVone423, on 08/05/2008, -2/+7In xp x64 i tend to get slightly better FPS in video games.
- dAbReAkA, on 08/05/2008, -0/+5there's a 64bit version of IE7 included with Vista x64
- BerenTW, on 08/05/2008, -2/+7or maybe you need to not be ignorant. There is no shortage of drivers in x64 vista. Why? Because to get a certified 32bit vista driver you need a 64bit one as well. They already ship them side byside unless they want the windows popup saying "this software is untrusted" in bright letters. I have vista on 3 different boxes, 2 for over a year. Tried with all sorts of hardware, and have not had trouble with any drivers. There was only a driver problem in the first like 2 months of release. But vista has now been out almost 2 years.
- konstructiv, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4I agree. I really was surprised that my four year old Samsung laser printer was supported when I installed Vista x64, let alone *everything* else.
I believe Vista x64 is much better supported than XP Pro x64 from a driver POV, maybe because 64-bit support in the latter was a bit of an afterthought. ;) - econofast, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4I think a lot of the Vista issues (at least early on) were on "upgraded" systems (XP to Vista). Windows users tend to hold on to equipment and software a lot longer than Mac folks. When "upgrading" consists of throwing out your entire system and buying a shiny new one (albeit a very nice shiny new one - don't get me wrong), it's a lot easier to guarantee compatibility. Oh, and the whole monopoly on the hardware side of things makes it pretty easy, too.
- RattlesnakeJake, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4There is a 32bit and a 64bit...FYI
- Ecsa0014, on 08/05/2008, -0/+4There are no visual differences (Eye Candy, as you say) between Vista 32 and Vista 64. I think you're confusing this with the differences between Vista Home Basic (No Aero) and the other versions of Vista (Aero).
- Breepee, on 08/05/2008, -3/+7It's pretty stupid, isn't it, to seperate apps based on architecture. Why would I care and why would the default programs installation folder matter to either WIndows or the applications? If I can manually install it anywhere, what does it matter? Also, in XP64 it's exactly the other way round: Program Files and Program Files (x86).
- roosterjm2k2, on 08/05/2008, -4/+8The problem is, most of the code you're running is 32-bit.
Open up Internet Explorer...guess what? 32-bit!
Im a developer, and had to make a Sidebar Gadget for a project that used flash. Well, sidebar.exe runs the 64-bit version by default... Adobe hasn't made flash for 64-bit, so it doesnt work (sidebar uses IE, so in its 64-bit world, its using 64-bit IE)
Hell, MS isn't even making Silverlight Player for 64-bit yet... their excuse is that "there aren't many compatible plugins, so you're better off using the 32-bit browser" ...
Lame. Just Lame. Psuedo-64-bit for the win! - inactive, on 08/05/2008, -1/+5i ran xp pro for the first 9 months, then upgraded to vista x64 afterwards
i haven't encountered any incompatibilities since the upgrade as my hardware is mostly current-gen. the only problems you'll have is if the program doesn't work with vista, period. the basic rule of thumb is that if it works with vista, it'll work with vista x64 - nonymous666, on 08/05/2008, -0/+3just fyi, Vista Ultimate retail comes with both 32-bit and 64-bit media.
But yeah, given the high price of the retail purchase of Vista, they'd have been a bit smarter if they tossed in both 32 and 64 bit for ALL editions of Vista. -
Show 51 - 100 of 156 discussions
Digg is coming to a city (and computer) near you! Check out all the details on our 
© Digg Inc. 2009
— Content created and posted by Digg users is 