|
|
what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
which one should i prefer for my laptop
config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i am
using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
|
|
Go to Vista32 or stay with what you have. Why are you changing? (Ask
yourself)
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> which one should i prefer for my laptop
> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i am
> using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
|
|
thats why i am asking what's the difference between windows 64bit and vista
64bit...and which one is better for my system
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
news:OIJ3FYXjHHA.680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
[Quoted Text] > Go to Vista32 or stay with what you have. Why are you changing? (Ask
> yourself)
>
> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
>> which one should i prefer for my laptop
>> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i
>> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>
|
|
With 512MB of ram I would stick with XP. Anyway, you haven't said a thing
about what software your are using or if you have even looked on the laptop
maker's website to see if you can get Vista drivers. Stay with XP.
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:D980072D-E97F-404C-A7EA-BA780D57D4DD[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > thats why i am asking what's the difference between windows 64bit and
> vista 64bit...and which one is better for my system
> "John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message
> news:OIJ3FYXjHHA.680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>> Go to Vista32 or stay with what you have. Why are you changing? (Ask
>> yourself)
>>
>> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
>>> which one should i prefer for my laptop
>>> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i
>>> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>>
>
|
|
This is a multi-part message in MIME format.
------=_NextPart_000_02D3_01C78D54.4FBF39D0
Content-Type: text/plain;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
not really enough memory for either.
unless you have a pressing need to upgrade to vista 32, stay with xp.
xp 64 will probably have MAJOR problems finding drivers for your laptop. =
vista 64 will not be much better because of driver signing.
mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message =
news:D980072D-E97F-404C-A7EA-BA780D57D4DD[ at ]microsoft.com...
thats why i am asking what's the difference between windows 64bit and =
vista=20
64bit...and which one is better for my system
"John Barnes" <jbarnes[ at ]email.net> wrote in message=20
news:OIJ3FYXjHHA.680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
> Go to Vista32 or stay with what you have. Why are you changing? =
(Ask=20
> yourself)
>
> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message=20
> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
>> which one should i prefer for my laptop
>> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) =
since i=20
>> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>=20
------=_NextPart_000_02D3_01C78D54.4FBF39D0
Content-Type: text/html;
charset="iso-8859-1"
Content-Transfer-Encoding: quoted-printable
<!DOCTYPE HTML PUBLIC "-//W3C//DTD HTML 4.0 Transitional//EN">
<HTML><HEAD>
<META http-equiv=3DContent-Type content=3D"text/html; =
charset=3Diso-8859-1">
<META content=3D"MSHTML 6.00.6000.16397" name=3DGENERATOR>
<STYLE></STYLE>
</HEAD>
<BODY bgColor=3D#ffffff>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>not really enough memory for =
either.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>unless you have a pressing need to =
upgrade to vista=20
32, stay with xp.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2>xp 64 will probably have MAJOR problems =
finding=20
drivers for your laptop. vista 64 will not be much better because of =
driver=20
signing.</FONT></DIV>
<DIV><FONT face=3DArial size=3D2></FONT> </DIV>
<DIV>
<P> </P>
<P><FONT color=3D#ff0000>
<MARQUEE scrollAmount=3D2 scrollDelay=3D9 behavior=3Dalternate =
width=3D"35%"=20
bgColor=3D#ffff00 height=3D22><A=20
href=3D"mailto:mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net">mikeyhsd[ at ]comcast.net</A></MARQUEE></=
FONT></P>
<P> </P></DIV>
<BLOCKQUOTE=20
style=3D"PADDING-RIGHT: 0px; PADDING-LEFT: 5px; MARGIN-LEFT: 5px; =
BORDER-LEFT: #000000 2px solid; MARGIN-RIGHT: 0px">
<DIV>"Gurpreet" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk">gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <A=20
=
href=3D"news:D980072D-E97F-404C-A7EA-BA780D57D4DD[ at ]microsoft.com">news:D98=
0072D-E97F-404C-A7EA-BA780D57D4DD[ at ]microsoft.com</A>...</DIV>thats=20
why i am asking what's the difference between windows 64bit and vista=20
<BR>64bit...and which one is better for my system<BR>"John Barnes" =
<<A=20
href=3D"mailto:jbarnes[ at ]email.net">jbarnes[ at ]email.net</A>> wrote in =
message=20
<BR><A=20
=
href=3D"news:OIJ3FYXjHHA.680[ at ]TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl">news:OIJ3FYXjHHA.680[ at ]T=
K2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl</A>...<BR>>=20
Go to Vista32 or stay with what you have. Why are you changing? =
(Ask=20
<BR>> yourself)<BR>><BR>> "Gurpreet" <<A=20
=
href=3D"mailto:gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk">gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk</=
A>>=20
wrote in message <BR>> <A=20
=
href=3D"news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com">news:550=
86F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com</A>...<BR>>>=20
what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 =
bit<BR>>>=20
which one should i prefer for my laptop<BR>>> config (1.6ghz x2 =
turion,=20
512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i <BR>>> am using =
standard=20
xp pro 32 bit edition and why?<BR>> <BR></BLOCKQUOTE></BODY></HTML>
------=_NextPart_000_02D3_01C78D54.4FBF39D0--
|
|
On May 3, 4:39 am, "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2...[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote:
[Quoted Text] > >> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i
> >> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?- Hide quoted text -
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/products/windowsvista/editions/systemrequirements.mspx
512MB won't get you more than a very low-end Vista version
installation.
You *might* be able to get away with XP64 on 512MB but really, if you
are not getting more RAM, I strongly recommend staying with 32-bit
XP. XP64 would not offer you much, and if you really need to run 64-
bit apps, you'll want to do so on a better laptop.
|
|
Gurpreet:
I have a HP Pavilion dv2000 which is the same or close to what
you're using. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit, which is in
it's own partition, then I added Vista Enterprise x64 to a separate
partition. For me both systems function equally well, but I've upgraded the
ram to 2GB. For your system with 512mb ram XP x64 should function normally,
for Vista x64 upgrading to 1GB min of ram would be recommended.
I agree fully with John that XP x64 or Vista x64 isn't a necessity
the 32-bit versions function well. Charlie Russel has an excellent article
about 64-bit computing at
http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
it also applies to Vista in most areas. Have a great day.
--
Dennis Pack
XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
Office Prof. Plus 2007
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> which one should i prefer for my laptop
> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i am
> using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
|
|
thanks guys for great suggestions...
i really appreciate that..
"Dennis Pack" <dennispack[ at ]hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FB5063A2-9B90-484C-AEBD-864195A9D4A7[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Gurpreet: > I have a HP Pavilion dv2000 which is the same or close to what > you're using. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit, which is in > it's own partition, then I added Vista Enterprise x64 to a separate > partition. For me both systems function equally well, but I've upgraded > the ram to 2GB. For your system with 512mb ram XP x64 should function > normally, for Vista x64 upgrading to 1GB min of ram would be recommended. > I agree fully with John that XP x64 or Vista x64 isn't a necessity > the 32-bit versions function well. Charlie Russel has an excellent article > about 64-bit computing at > http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc > it also applies to Vista in most areas. Have a great day. > > -- > Dennis Pack > XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64 > Office Prof. Plus 2007 > "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com... >> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit >> which one should i prefer for my laptop >> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i >> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why? >
|
|
since i have turion x2 tl-52 how can i best use
or optimise for 64bit applications.
"Dennis Pack" <dennispack[ at ]hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:FB5063A2-9B90-484C-AEBD-864195A9D4A7[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > Gurpreet: > I have a HP Pavilion dv2000 which is the same or close to what > you're using. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit, which is in > it's own partition, then I added Vista Enterprise x64 to a separate > partition. For me both systems function equally well, but I've upgraded > the ram to 2GB. For your system with 512mb ram XP x64 should function > normally, for Vista x64 upgrading to 1GB min of ram would be recommended. > I agree fully with John that XP x64 or Vista x64 isn't a necessity > the 32-bit versions function well. Charlie Russel has an excellent article > about 64-bit computing at > http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc > it also applies to Vista in most areas. Have a great day. > > -- > Dennis Pack > XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64 > Office Prof. Plus 2007 > "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com... >> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit >> which one should i prefer for my laptop >> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i >> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why? >
|
|
In my understanding and view:
XP 64 bit is a special-purpose operating system. It is intended for
those with particular needs-specifically, the need to address a large
memory-space efficiently. MS did and does not foresee any appreciable,
large-scale general support of this OS from hardware manufacturers.
Thus, it was released largely through OEM channels (where it would be
sold with systems that could support it).
Vista 64 is intended for a wider user group. Nevertheless, the up-takers
are seen as high-end, leading-edge users who have or are willing to get
the most-capable hardware to run the system. Indicative of that mind set
is the fact that Vista 64 bit media is not included with all but the
higher-end SKUs. (Can be had with others but not in-box.)
I found XP 64 worked well with 512 MB of memory on an Athlon 64x2 Going
to 1 GB was noticeable sometimes but not startlingly better. Vista 64
worked with 512 MB. The performance hit was not staggering but
definitely noticeable. Going to 1 GB was not only noticeable but a great
relief. Performance became good. Changing to 2 GB was noticeable but not
staggering. (Note: If the box has 4 GB, Vista 64 becomes almost
necessary to make use of all 4 GB.)
Now, I am talking about "general" use. Outlook for e-mail, Windows Mail
(formerly called Outlook Express) for NNTP newsgroups, Office 2007 or
2003 for word pro, &c. For memory-intensive use (e.g. video processing),
throw as much memory as possible at it but certainly 2 GB or more is
wise.
In short, I would suggest upping the memory to at least 1 GB and using
Vista 64. Also, exercise due diligence and check to be sure you can get
the needed hardware drivers for you notebook and that your needed and
wanted software will work properly.
That being said, I would agree that the safest course of action would be
to keep the 32 bit system. Further, you could wait for the first service
pack release for the OS before jumping in. By then, a greater array of
drivers will be available and more software will have available
Vista-compatible updates available. In short, comfort level will be
higher.
My personal preference is expressed in the fact than none of the three
boxes I use have been booted to anything other than Vista 64 since late
January.
Tom Ferguson
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> which one should i prefer for my laptop
> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since
> i am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
|
|
Again, it depends on the applications.
The operating system you install on the computer will take care of
optimizing istself for the processor in your machine. This is normally not
something you have to do. The most you might have to do is download and
install a cpu driver from the AMD site, but it depends on the OS you install
as to whether that driver is already included or not.
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:EA42B63A-BAE0-4645-853E-6C37FE5D13EB[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > since i have turion x2 tl-52 how can i best use > or optimise for 64bit applications. > > "Dennis Pack" <dennispack[ at ]hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message > news:FB5063A2-9B90-484C-AEBD-864195A9D4A7[ at ]microsoft.com... >> Gurpreet: >> I have a HP Pavilion dv2000 which is the same or close to what >> you're using. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit, which is in >> it's own partition, then I added Vista Enterprise x64 to a separate >> partition. For me both systems function equally well, but I've upgraded >> the ram to 2GB. For your system with 512mb ram XP x64 should function >> normally, for Vista x64 upgrading to 1GB min of ram would be recommended. >> I agree fully with John that XP x64 or Vista x64 isn't a necessity >> the 32-bit versions function well. Charlie Russel has an excellent >> article about 64-bit computing at >> http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc >> it also applies to Vista in most areas. Have a great day. >> >> -- >> Dennis Pack >> XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64 >> Office Prof. Plus 2007 >> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message >> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com... >>> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit >>> which one should i prefer for my laptop >>> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i >>> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why? >> >
|
|
Agreed, like me... I use my system as a developer (programming) platform to
write some office programs, a heavy gamer (high end graphics like), sometimes
for distributed computing projects, and the most of the time because I just
like it.
"Colin Barnhorst" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > Again, it depends on the applications. > > The operating system you install on the computer will take care of > optimizing istself for the processor in your machine. This is normally not > something you have to do. The most you might have to do is download and > install a cpu driver from the AMD site, but it depends on the OS you install > as to whether that driver is already included or not. > > "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > news:EA42B63A-BAE0-4645-853E-6C37FE5D13EB[ at ]microsoft.com... > > since i have turion x2 tl-52 how can i best use > > or optimise for 64bit applications. > > > > "Dennis Pack" <dennispack[ at ]hotmail.nospam.com> wrote in message > > news:FB5063A2-9B90-484C-AEBD-864195A9D4A7[ at ]microsoft.com... > >> Gurpreet: > >> I have a HP Pavilion dv2000 which is the same or close to what > >> you're using. My laptop came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit, which is in > >> it's own partition, then I added Vista Enterprise x64 to a separate > >> partition. For me both systems function equally well, but I've upgraded > >> the ram to 2GB. For your system with 512mb ram XP x64 should function > >> normally, for Vista x64 upgrading to 1GB min of ram would be recommended. > >> I agree fully with John that XP x64 or Vista x64 isn't a necessity > >> the 32-bit versions function well. Charlie Russel has an excellent > >> article about 64-bit computing at > >> http://download.microsoft.com/download/B/8/6/B868C664-13FC-4F91-9651-5B6D4F1A2F60/Is_Windows_XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc > >> it also applies to Vista in most areas. Have a great day. > >> > >> -- > >> Dennis Pack > >> XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64 > >> Office Prof. Plus 2007 > >> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message > >> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com... > >>> what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit > >>> which one should i prefer for my laptop > >>> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i > >>> am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why? > >> > > > |
|
From my experience, Vista Ultimate x64, which is what I use, is intended for
techies, enthusaists, and hard core gamers. If you have a top of the line
computer and use it for graphic intensive applications or for processor
intensive apps. then by all means get Vista x64.
I have seen in XP x64 that 512MB of memory, the computer performed okay.
However, it slightly more stable than XP Home that came on the system, but it
didn't impress me any.
When I upgraded to Vista x64, I still had 512MB of memory and it was
horrible when playing games. I got 1.5 GB of RAM and it worked a whole lot
better, but you will more than likely want to have 2GB or more. I currently
have 2GB and its incredibly fast and on average it uses no more than 70% of
my RAM. Note: that is when I am running Virtual PC 2007 and Office 2007 and
DreamScene and surfing the net.
Also note: that if you use the ReadyBoost feature, you may or may not see
any performance benefits in x64, but when you start to get to +90% it will
start to help speed up the system to deal with the intense memory useage of
Vista x64. On my system I have a 4GB ReadyBoost ready jumpdrive doing this.
"Tom Ferguson" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > In my understanding and view:
>
> XP 64 bit is a special-purpose operating system. It is intended for
> those with particular needs-specifically, the need to address a large
> memory-space efficiently. MS did and does not foresee any appreciable,
> large-scale general support of this OS from hardware manufacturers.
> Thus, it was released largely through OEM channels (where it would be
> sold with systems that could support it).
>
> Vista 64 is intended for a wider user group. Nevertheless, the up-takers
> are seen as high-end, leading-edge users who have or are willing to get
> the most-capable hardware to run the system. Indicative of that mind set
> is the fact that Vista 64 bit media is not included with all but the
> higher-end SKUs. (Can be had with others but not in-box.)
>
> I found XP 64 worked well with 512 MB of memory on an Athlon 64x2 Going
> to 1 GB was noticeable sometimes but not startlingly better. Vista 64
> worked with 512 MB. The performance hit was not staggering but
> definitely noticeable. Going to 1 GB was not only noticeable but a great
> relief. Performance became good. Changing to 2 GB was noticeable but not
> staggering. (Note: If the box has 4 GB, Vista 64 becomes almost
> necessary to make use of all 4 GB.)
>
> Now, I am talking about "general" use. Outlook for e-mail, Windows Mail
> (formerly called Outlook Express) for NNTP newsgroups, Office 2007 or
> 2003 for word pro, &c. For memory-intensive use (e.g. video processing),
> throw as much memory as possible at it but certainly 2 GB or more is
> wise.
>
> In short, I would suggest upping the memory to at least 1 GB and using
> Vista 64. Also, exercise due diligence and check to be sure you can get
> the needed hardware drivers for you notebook and that your needed and
> wanted software will work properly.
>
> That being said, I would agree that the safest course of action would be
> to keep the 32 bit system. Further, you could wait for the first service
> pack release for the OS before jumping in. By then, a greater array of
> drivers will be available and more software will have available
> Vista-compatible updates available. In short, comfort level will be
> higher.
>
> My personal preference is expressed in the fact than none of the three
> boxes I use have been booted to anything other than Vista 64 since late
> January.
>
> Tom Ferguson
>
>
> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> > which one should i prefer for my laptop
> > config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since
> > i am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>
>
|
|
it means if i upgrade my ram 1gb can i use
vista x64 for my daily use such as surfing, movies, photoshop using, little
bit of video editing on my laptop
is my processor amd turion x2 tl-52, ram 1gb ddr2 533mhz and graphics card
(6150go shared mem 256 mb) sufficient enough to deal with vista x64 or still
i need some upgrade.
one thing i got from this large discussion that 64 bit system helps in
accessing large memories upto 128gb, still i am unable to understand this is
what people are upgrading there system only for accessing large mem's still
they have less than 4gb of ram installed on their system (using x64 os eg
vista). even mem upto 4gb can be used by 32 bit systems.
is there any killer reason in terms of processing, speed and other technical
terminology that 64 bit system are fair enough to beat 32 bit system.
also why microsoft pulled vista 64 bit in market still there are not 64bit
application easily available for that.
also that is it recommed that 64 bit system can be used for home purposes?
if yes why and no why? how can it be helpful for home need?
"Sasha" <Sasha[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:BE307860-2C9F-4D1F-81D9-57AF06508731[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > From my experience, Vista Ultimate x64, which is what I use, is intended
> for
> techies, enthusaists, and hard core gamers. If you have a top of the line
> computer and use it for graphic intensive applications or for processor
> intensive apps. then by all means get Vista x64.
>
> I have seen in XP x64 that 512MB of memory, the computer performed okay.
> However, it slightly more stable than XP Home that came on the system, but
> it
> didn't impress me any.
>
> When I upgraded to Vista x64, I still had 512MB of memory and it was
> horrible when playing games. I got 1.5 GB of RAM and it worked a whole lot
> better, but you will more than likely want to have 2GB or more. I
> currently
> have 2GB and its incredibly fast and on average it uses no more than 70%
> of
> my RAM. Note: that is when I am running Virtual PC 2007 and Office 2007
> and
> DreamScene and surfing the net.
>
> Also note: that if you use the ReadyBoost feature, you may or may not see
> any performance benefits in x64, but when you start to get to +90% it will
> start to help speed up the system to deal with the intense memory useage
> of
> Vista x64. On my system I have a 4GB ReadyBoost ready jumpdrive doing
> this.
>
> "Tom Ferguson" wrote:
>
>> In my understanding and view:
>>
>> XP 64 bit is a special-purpose operating system. It is intended for
>> those with particular needs-specifically, the need to address a large
>> memory-space efficiently. MS did and does not foresee any appreciable,
>> large-scale general support of this OS from hardware manufacturers.
>> Thus, it was released largely through OEM channels (where it would be
>> sold with systems that could support it).
>>
>> Vista 64 is intended for a wider user group. Nevertheless, the up-takers
>> are seen as high-end, leading-edge users who have or are willing to get
>> the most-capable hardware to run the system. Indicative of that mind set
>> is the fact that Vista 64 bit media is not included with all but the
>> higher-end SKUs. (Can be had with others but not in-box.)
>>
>> I found XP 64 worked well with 512 MB of memory on an Athlon 64x2 Going
>> to 1 GB was noticeable sometimes but not startlingly better. Vista 64
>> worked with 512 MB. The performance hit was not staggering but
>> definitely noticeable. Going to 1 GB was not only noticeable but a great
>> relief. Performance became good. Changing to 2 GB was noticeable but not
>> staggering. (Note: If the box has 4 GB, Vista 64 becomes almost
>> necessary to make use of all 4 GB.)
>>
>> Now, I am talking about "general" use. Outlook for e-mail, Windows Mail
>> (formerly called Outlook Express) for NNTP newsgroups, Office 2007 or
>> 2003 for word pro, &c. For memory-intensive use (e.g. video processing),
>> throw as much memory as possible at it but certainly 2 GB or more is
>> wise.
>>
>> In short, I would suggest upping the memory to at least 1 GB and using
>> Vista 64. Also, exercise due diligence and check to be sure you can get
>> the needed hardware drivers for you notebook and that your needed and
>> wanted software will work properly.
>>
>> That being said, I would agree that the safest course of action would be
>> to keep the 32 bit system. Further, you could wait for the first service
>> pack release for the OS before jumping in. By then, a greater array of
>> drivers will be available and more software will have available
>> Vista-compatible updates available. In short, comfort level will be
>> higher.
>>
>> My personal preference is expressed in the fact than none of the three
>> boxes I use have been booted to anything other than Vista 64 since late
>> January.
>>
>> Tom Ferguson
>>
>>
>> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
>> > which one should i prefer for my laptop
>> > config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since
>> > i am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>>
>>
|
|
I don't know much about neither but I have vista and Im trying to figure some
things out with my graphics. but my advice to you is if you have been using
Xp then its best that you continue unless you think vista is better like they
say.
"Gurpreet" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> which one should i prefer for my laptop
> config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since i am
> using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>
|
|
I understand your confusion on these points. Perhaps a few words in
summary might help:
Yes, you can use Vista 64 bit with 1 GB memory on the hardware you
mention. Photoshop and other video would benefit from more memory but
would be OK with what you have now. Video is also satisfactory but
probably not "the best".
I believe that 64 bit Vista outperforms 32 bit vista running 32 bit
applications on its Windows on Windows (WOW) sub-system.
As for why OP do use or don't use 64 bit-I gave up trying to account for
anyone else's actions, desires or dreams a long time ago. ;-)
All the best.
Tom
MSMVP
Windows Shell/User
"Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
news:13969B95-4EE0-42E4-A1BF-C0C3CE727A4E[ at ]microsoft.com...
[Quoted Text] > it means if i upgrade my ram 1gb can i use
> vista x64 for my daily use such as surfing, movies, photoshop using,
> little bit of video editing on my laptop
> is my processor amd turion x2 tl-52, ram 1gb ddr2 533mhz and graphics
> card (6150go shared mem 256 mb) sufficient enough to deal with vista
> x64 or still i need some upgrade.
>
> one thing i got from this large discussion that 64 bit system helps in
> accessing large memories upto 128gb, still i am unable to understand
> this is what people are upgrading there system only for accessing
> large mem's still they have less than 4gb of ram installed on their
> system (using x64 os eg vista). even mem upto 4gb can be used by 32
> bit systems.
>
> is there any killer reason in terms of processing, speed and other
> technical terminology that 64 bit system are fair enough to beat 32
> bit system.
>
> also why microsoft pulled vista 64 bit in market still there are not
> 64bit application easily available for that.
> also that is it recommed that 64 bit system can be used for home
> purposes? if yes why and no why? how can it be helpful for home need?
>
> "Sasha" <Sasha[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BE307860-2C9F-4D1F-81D9-57AF06508731[ at ]microsoft.com...
>> From my experience, Vista Ultimate x64, which is what I use, is
>> intended for
>> techies, enthusaists, and hard core gamers. If you have a top of the
>> line
>> computer and use it for graphic intensive applications or for
>> processor
>> intensive apps. then by all means get Vista x64.
>>
>> I have seen in XP x64 that 512MB of memory, the computer performed
>> okay.
>> However, it slightly more stable than XP Home that came on the
>> system, but it
>> didn't impress me any.
>>
>> When I upgraded to Vista x64, I still had 512MB of memory and it was
>> horrible when playing games. I got 1.5 GB of RAM and it worked a
>> whole lot
>> better, but you will more than likely want to have 2GB or more. I
>> currently
>> have 2GB and its incredibly fast and on average it uses no more than
>> 70% of
>> my RAM. Note: that is when I am running Virtual PC 2007 and Office
>> 2007 and
>> DreamScene and surfing the net.
>>
>> Also note: that if you use the ReadyBoost feature, you may or may not
>> see
>> any performance benefits in x64, but when you start to get to +90% it
>> will
>> start to help speed up the system to deal with the intense memory
>> useage of
>> Vista x64. On my system I have a 4GB ReadyBoost ready jumpdrive doing
>> this.
>>
>> "Tom Ferguson" wrote:
>>
>>> In my understanding and view:
>>>
>>> XP 64 bit is a special-purpose operating system. It is intended for
>>> those with particular needs-specifically, the need to address a
>>> large
>>> memory-space efficiently. MS did and does not foresee any
>>> appreciable,
>>> large-scale general support of this OS from hardware manufacturers.
>>> Thus, it was released largely through OEM channels (where it would
>>> be
>>> sold with systems that could support it).
>>>
>>> Vista 64 is intended for a wider user group. Nevertheless, the
>>> up-takers
>>> are seen as high-end, leading-edge users who have or are willing to
>>> get
>>> the most-capable hardware to run the system. Indicative of that mind
>>> set
>>> is the fact that Vista 64 bit media is not included with all but the
>>> higher-end SKUs. (Can be had with others but not in-box.)
>>>
>>> I found XP 64 worked well with 512 MB of memory on an Athlon 64x2
>>> Going
>>> to 1 GB was noticeable sometimes but not startlingly better. Vista
>>> 64
>>> worked with 512 MB. The performance hit was not staggering but
>>> definitely noticeable. Going to 1 GB was not only noticeable but a
>>> great
>>> relief. Performance became good. Changing to 2 GB was noticeable but
>>> not
>>> staggering. (Note: If the box has 4 GB, Vista 64 becomes almost
>>> necessary to make use of all 4 GB.)
>>>
>>> Now, I am talking about "general" use. Outlook for e-mail, Windows
>>> Mail
>>> (formerly called Outlook Express) for NNTP newsgroups, Office 2007
>>> or
>>> 2003 for word pro, &c. For memory-intensive use (e.g. video
>>> processing),
>>> throw as much memory as possible at it but certainly 2 GB or more is
>>> wise.
>>>
>>> In short, I would suggest upping the memory to at least 1 GB and
>>> using
>>> Vista 64. Also, exercise due diligence and check to be sure you can
>>> get
>>> the needed hardware drivers for you notebook and that your needed
>>> and
>>> wanted software will work properly.
>>>
>>> That being said, I would agree that the safest course of action
>>> would be
>>> to keep the 32 bit system. Further, you could wait for the first
>>> service
>>> pack release for the OS before jumping in. By then, a greater array
>>> of
>>> drivers will be available and more software will have available
>>> Vista-compatible updates available. In short, comfort level will be
>>> higher.
>>>
>>> My personal preference is expressed in the fact than none of the
>>> three
>>> boxes I use have been booted to anything other than Vista 64 since
>>> late
>>> January.
>>>
>>> Tom Ferguson
>>>
>>>
>>> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
>>> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
>>> > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
>>> > which one should i prefer for my laptop
>>> > config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.)
>>> > since
>>> > i am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
>>>
>>>
>
|
|
Microsoft is putting into market because in my opinion, they are wanting to
go completely over into x64 by the time Windows Vienna or Windows version 7
is release. Like this guy said on his site on page 53 of 64
http://www.inspirare.net/pdf/VistaPower.pdf
Yes you do have advantages in processing power and performance, but if you
don't understand what you want to use it for then I would highly recommend
you stick to x86 (32bit) windows.
I use my system everyday, I don't always run the most graphics intensive
apps or do programming 24/7 but I do run programs that like IE7 and Office.
But if you don't know what you want to use it for then stick with whatever
you are using.
As I said somewhere else, if you can answer these questions then you maybe
able to decide on your own.
What will I use it for? Graphics intensive apps? Large processing power?
Hard core heavy graphics gaming? Or do I feel like I am a person that loves
to be on the bleeding edge of technology?
"Gurpreet" wrote:
[Quoted Text] > it means if i upgrade my ram 1gb can i use
> vista x64 for my daily use such as surfing, movies, photoshop using, little
> bit of video editing on my laptop
> is my processor amd turion x2 tl-52, ram 1gb ddr2 533mhz and graphics card
> (6150go shared mem 256 mb) sufficient enough to deal with vista x64 or still
> i need some upgrade.
>
> one thing i got from this large discussion that 64 bit system helps in
> accessing large memories upto 128gb, still i am unable to understand this is
> what people are upgrading there system only for accessing large mem's still
> they have less than 4gb of ram installed on their system (using x64 os eg
> vista). even mem upto 4gb can be used by 32 bit systems.
>
> is there any killer reason in terms of processing, speed and other technical
> terminology that 64 bit system are fair enough to beat 32 bit system.
>
> also why microsoft pulled vista 64 bit in market still there are not 64bit
> application easily available for that.
> also that is it recommed that 64 bit system can be used for home purposes?
> if yes why and no why? how can it be helpful for home need?
>
> "Sasha" <Sasha[ at ]discussions.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:BE307860-2C9F-4D1F-81D9-57AF06508731[ at ]microsoft.com...
> > From my experience, Vista Ultimate x64, which is what I use, is intended
> > for
> > techies, enthusaists, and hard core gamers. If you have a top of the line
> > computer and use it for graphic intensive applications or for processor
> > intensive apps. then by all means get Vista x64.
> >
> > I have seen in XP x64 that 512MB of memory, the computer performed okay.
> > However, it slightly more stable than XP Home that came on the system, but
> > it
> > didn't impress me any.
> >
> > When I upgraded to Vista x64, I still had 512MB of memory and it was
> > horrible when playing games. I got 1.5 GB of RAM and it worked a whole lot
> > better, but you will more than likely want to have 2GB or more. I
> > currently
> > have 2GB and its incredibly fast and on average it uses no more than 70%
> > of
> > my RAM. Note: that is when I am running Virtual PC 2007 and Office 2007
> > and
> > DreamScene and surfing the net.
> >
> > Also note: that if you use the ReadyBoost feature, you may or may not see
> > any performance benefits in x64, but when you start to get to +90% it will
> > start to help speed up the system to deal with the intense memory useage
> > of
> > Vista x64. On my system I have a 4GB ReadyBoost ready jumpdrive doing
> > this.
> >
> > "Tom Ferguson" wrote:
> >
> >> In my understanding and view:
> >>
> >> XP 64 bit is a special-purpose operating system. It is intended for
> >> those with particular needs-specifically, the need to address a large
> >> memory-space efficiently. MS did and does not foresee any appreciable,
> >> large-scale general support of this OS from hardware manufacturers.
> >> Thus, it was released largely through OEM channels (where it would be
> >> sold with systems that could support it).
> >>
> >> Vista 64 is intended for a wider user group. Nevertheless, the up-takers
> >> are seen as high-end, leading-edge users who have or are willing to get
> >> the most-capable hardware to run the system. Indicative of that mind set
> >> is the fact that Vista 64 bit media is not included with all but the
> >> higher-end SKUs. (Can be had with others but not in-box.)
> >>
> >> I found XP 64 worked well with 512 MB of memory on an Athlon 64x2 Going
> >> to 1 GB was noticeable sometimes but not startlingly better. Vista 64
> >> worked with 512 MB. The performance hit was not staggering but
> >> definitely noticeable. Going to 1 GB was not only noticeable but a great
> >> relief. Performance became good. Changing to 2 GB was noticeable but not
> >> staggering. (Note: If the box has 4 GB, Vista 64 becomes almost
> >> necessary to make use of all 4 GB.)
> >>
> >> Now, I am talking about "general" use. Outlook for e-mail, Windows Mail
> >> (formerly called Outlook Express) for NNTP newsgroups, Office 2007 or
> >> 2003 for word pro, &c. For memory-intensive use (e.g. video processing),
> >> throw as much memory as possible at it but certainly 2 GB or more is
> >> wise.
> >>
> >> In short, I would suggest upping the memory to at least 1 GB and using
> >> Vista 64. Also, exercise due diligence and check to be sure you can get
> >> the needed hardware drivers for you notebook and that your needed and
> >> wanted software will work properly.
> >>
> >> That being said, I would agree that the safest course of action would be
> >> to keep the 32 bit system. Further, you could wait for the first service
> >> pack release for the OS before jumping in. By then, a greater array of
> >> drivers will be available and more software will have available
> >> Vista-compatible updates available. In short, comfort level will be
> >> higher.
> >>
> >> My personal preference is expressed in the fact than none of the three
> >> boxes I use have been booted to anything other than Vista 64 since late
> >> January.
> >>
> >> Tom Ferguson
> >>
> >>
> >> "Gurpreet" <gpreetsingh2003[ at ]yahoo.co.uk> wrote in message
> >> news:55086F69-48F2-410F-B2CE-5899457583AA[ at ]microsoft.com...
> >> > what is difference between xp 64 bit edition and vista 64 bit
> >> > which one should i prefer for my laptop
> >> > config (1.6ghz x2 turion, 512 ram, 6150go nvidia graphics etc.) since
> >> > i am using standard xp pro 32 bit edition and why?
> >>
> >>
>
>
|
|
|