Home

32-Bit Vista - A Bad Choice?

Tue, 10/30/2007 - 02:54 — R.J. Lorimer

vista

In a previous blog entry about my computer purchasing process, I alluded to the reasons I chose a 64-bit operating system in my next purchase, I why I chose to do so. One of the main reasons I chose to make the leap was because of the three part series of articles at Anandtech.com titled ‘A Messy Transition’:

These articles describe the 32-bit memory-addressing issue in detail, and are written from the perspective of an avid gamer, and how those individuals are going to begin feeling a lot more friction as we move into the future. The near future (read 2008).

Here are some of the key points about this article:

  1. The absolute memory addressing limit for 32-bit Windows is 4GB. Most people believe this to be the hard wall we are facing.
  2. In reality, the limit for a given system is much less than 4GB because of all of the OS memory overhead.
  3. Further tightening the noose, Windows splits the maximum memory allocation for any given program in half (1/2 for user space memory, 1/2 for kernel space) - because of this only 2GB is available (by default) to the application for most app memory needs.
  4. Windows Vista without a particular hotfix (KB940105), occupies the user-space with an allocation of memory to match the video memory available (which could be signficant) - this is for WDDM (Windows Vista Display Driver Model), but ends up interfering with games not written to take advantage of it.

Long story short, memory could quickly become a serious burden for gamers, particularly those running the somewhat-flawed Vista. SP1 should help alleviate this issue for the time being, but as game data gets larger and larger, this hard wall will only return, and probably soon.

As I mentioned previously, I have moved to 64-bit Vista. What is ironic is that for the large majority of games published today, this will help me not-at-all. Unfortunately, if an application is compiled as an x86 32-bit, it will (and by definition must) still be held to the same memory constraints of running on a native 32-bit system. Because of this, the average 32-bit memory offender will still come to bite me.

However, there are games (such as Far Cry) that have already shipped in 64-bit varieties. The more 64-bit owners, the more of these variants will become available.

So, it would seem to me that, unless you’re planning on buying Ultimate Retail (which ships with both variants; 32- and 64-bit) you are best served to buy the 64-bit version of Vista, as it appears fairly soon it could become the only reasonable option.

Comments

Tue, 01/01/2008 - 04:53 — Noah (not verified)

Don't bother with Vista 32-bit

To anyone who is thinking of getting a machine with Vista on it... Do not buy the 32-bit version unless you have to. Vista with Aero wants to use about 800MB just to run Windows, plus the superfetch function wants to use about 1GB of RAM to do it's job well. So that's 1.8GB with nothing running. Try and run Adobe Photoshop, which wants about 1+GB to itself to be fast, and you're pegging the 3-4GB ususable Max RAM with only that one program running. Kind of leaves out the idea of future room to grow.

Of course you'll have to sacrifice that dinosaur of a printer or scanner if it doesn't support x64 (you should check first), but if you're going to use Vista, you might as well plan on spending the extra $100 or so to replace that sort of stuff.

Vista with 2GB of RAM is about like XP with 1GB. So that RAM ceiling is more of a problem than ever. I just grudgingly moved from 64-bit XP to Vista x64 only to find out it actually works better, which seems to be mainly b/c the OS tries to keep as much in RAM as possible - which of course requires more RAM. I wouldn't run Vista w/ Aero with less than 3GB for anything more than the basics as it'll soon need at least that much to be realistically fast for moderate to heavy use.

Bottom line - If you're going to make the jump to Vista, you might as well go for the 64-bit since you're liable to have some sort of compatibility problems anyways, and the benefits of more RAM + Vista x64 outweigh the cost of a new printer. Make sure you get a dual-core processor, too. Vista is unbearable with a single core (read: slow) processor.

Despite my dislike for Vista, I must admit I am sold (on the 64-bit version only!). Doom3 runs faster, windows itself is faster, and things are more fluid overall. Just make sure you have enough RAM, and deactivate that annoying User Account Control prompt (make it auto-elevate you rather than turning it off entirely so those programs that need it don't freak out)

If you aren't willing to make the jump and buy all new stuff, don't bother with Vista - you are wasting your time and money for a stepping-stone product that won't be usable in two years or so.

For Reference, My current build is:
AMD Athlon X2 3600 (overclocked to 9 x 285FSB -> 2.56GHz)
2GB CAS-5 DDR2-800MHz RAM
160GB 7200RPM Seagate SATA HDD for Vista
Biostar T-7025 Series Motherboard (nForce4)
nVidia 7600GT 256MB PCI-e Video Card
Vista performance index rating of 5.1 (limited by CPU speed)

Thu, 11/29/2007 - 22:36 — Nicholas Sherlock (not verified)

64-bit does improve 32-bit applications

32-bit applications that signal their support for it in their headers can receive access to the entire 4GB of address space when running on 64-bit Windows, compared to 2GB on most Windows at the moment.