Are 64-bit PCs Finally Catching On?

[Rob Williams]

From our front-page news:

Looking back to three years ago when I wrote an article entitled, 'Windows XP - 32-bit vs 64-bit', I have to laugh. As it stands, three years later, the majority of the computers on the market right now are still running 32-bit operating systems (OS X 10.5+ is the only one that's 100% 64-bit), and past that, many common applications still lack native 64-bit binaries.

One thing's for sure, though... things were far worse back when I wrote that article. Using Windows XP x64 was a chore, because so much hardware would simply not function, and most companies would laugh if you requested a compatible driver. With Vista, things improved quite a bit, and as long as you are not relying on very old equipment, then very little should get in the way of your computing experience. On my Windows machine, I have been running 64-bit Vista for quite a while and have found it far, far more stable than the 32-bit Vista, ironically.

A recent CNET blog entry references an official Microsoft blog entry posted earlier this week that stated 20% of new computers sold during June, connected to the Windows Update service, were running the 64-bit version of Vista. That is an impressive stat, and hopefully one that will encourage developers to hurry up and finally release native 64-bit software. It's sure been a long wait thus far...

Among the factors leading to the shift are the fact that 64-bit machines, unlike their 32-bit brethren, can directly address more than 4GB of memory. Also, more 64-bit software is finally coming to market, as evidenced by last week's release of a 64-bit optimized version of Adobe Lightroom.

Source: Beyond Binary Blog
​

 

[Merlin]

I did have Vista 32 bit and 64 bit as dual boot, I still found that many programs didnt work with 64 bit so I took it off for the time being.
Maybe, If I build another machine ( no time soon ) I'll try to load the 64 bit version

Merlin

 

[b1lk1]

If you ask me, the only reason people are even running 64-bit versions right now (for the majority atleast) is so they can have 4GB of ram. Otherwise, I hardly see any other viable reason at all for the masses to run 64-bit over 32.

 

[Kougar]

For viable reasons, besides the memory issue, I'd point out that 64bit generally has better stability thanks to better drivers, occasionally better performance which will only increase as native 64bit apps are developed, and better security.

Infact, much better security. Rather than write it out, here's a link that covers most of it. http://www.winsupersite.com/showcase/winvista_ff_x64.asp

I'm going to give 64bit a shot myself after I sort out a few things for it.

 

[Rob Williams]

I spent a LOT of time in 32-bit Vista since before its official launch and when I moved to the 64-bit version, it was like a breath of fresh air. It's still got some nags, but it's FAR more reliable in my experience over the 32-bit version, which is why I'm keen on using it in most of our benchmarking. The 32-bit version literally pushed me away due to the continual errors.

 

[Kougar]

That is exactly the sort of feedback I have been constantly hearing about 64bit Vista. And it is why I only recommend 64bit Vista if people want it over XP.

I finally installed my first 64bit OS, got Vista up and running. I have to say... I have not found a single program that does not work in Vista 64bit. The vast array of little software utilities, free programs, and my array of software PC tools, all of it has worked. I'm running out of things to install.

NVIDIA still has some horrific CUDA driver issues under XP, so I was anxious to try Vista now that they fixed the various NVIDIA driver BSOD issues for both OS's. XP has a GUI lag problem that makes trying to use the computer with the GPU2 client running almost unbearable at times. Vista doesn't have that problem.

 

[b1lk1]

Must be why I love Vista so. I never really used hte 32-bit version.