Legit Reviews

Vista is coming soon, and I plan on getting a copy myself the first day that it is released. But I was wondering what version I should get...

How many are you going to get the 32-bit version of Windows vista? I'm thinking about getting a 64-bit because I have a 64-bit processor for one thing and second I hear that Vista is going to fully support 64-bit processing and all that great stuff.

My main concern is will 16-bit applications still run like they do in XP 32-bit? The XP 64-bit version couldn't run certain 16-bit apps like PKUNZIP and I had to use a dos emulator to run it. Plus even some 32-bit Windows apps had trouble running as well, but I forgot which ones.

So vote and post! (Poll will last for 14 days)

Thanks!

i'm using x64 at the moment so i'd get the 64 bit version of vista, especially since games are begginging to support native 64 bit, so you'd get that much more performance out of your equipment if you let the operating system take advantage of it. however I fear all old drivers on things will give you problems no matter what and also old programs so just keep your old machine around and kicking for years to come to play emulators and other such things.

I'm with dgood...grab the 64 bit for twice the possibilities. My university sells Microsoft Operating Systems for 8 bucks apiece...so I'm gonna grab one ASAP. I just have to wait until I've built my new computer, though, my lappy can't even handle Diablo II. At all.

running 64bit now and have no problems on the Intel E6300.

I wont get any more than the Ultimate that came with the Intel bundle though!!! MS has ridiculous pricing on Vista, and I wont pay it!

Mike

Oh and I LOVE Windows - Linux is too hard to learn so I am not a windows basher - they just need to bring that Ultimate price down to around $100, erase the Home Basic, and make the other Home version the ONLY home version for around $50.

One thing you have to consider before going 64bit is driver support for hardware, especially peripherals. A friend wanted Win XP (64 bit) on a new box that I helped him put together. Afterward he had all kinds of problems getting certain things working. For example, he has an HP all-in-one printer. The included XP drivers covered everything but the scanning function. HP did not have drivers for the 64 bit, so now he's kinda stuck.

The other thing that I read somewhere (or maybe made up) was that some 32 bit programs still use a 16 bit installer (LAZY!!!! CHEAP!!!!). And (at least with XP-64) there is no support for native 16 bit. Personally I am all about moving forward, but until I know that the programs I use are fully what they claim to be then I'd probably go with the 32 bit version.

I was under the assumption that 64 Bit OS could emulate the 32 Bit Programs which in turn can emulate a 16 Bit Program.

I'm personally going for Vista 64 Bit because once Vista is out drivers should start coming out for it in terms of printers, etc because they are pushing 64 bit system much more.

Why I still work with older programs is because I like to play older games for one thing and I do work a lot in the command line. So I tend to run into older programs that can be emulated from XP's command line console.

Sporg wrote:The other thing that I read somewhere (or maybe made up) was that some 32 bit programs still use a 16 bit installer (LAZY!!!! CHEAP!!!!)

I think that was the problem I encountered when I was using XP 64-bit. It probably occurs with freeware apps. Or perhaps you could say that if you're into gaming and modifying games, trying to use this program called Wintex 4.3 that can edit stuff out of a doom iwad file probably wouldn't work on a 64-bit OS. AND that also could be true because some apps created for windows 98 use a 16-bit installer because there was no need to worry about it during the time?

Sporg wrote:Personally I am all about moving forward, but until I know that the programs I use are fully what they claim to be then I'd probably go with the 32 bit version.

I'd also like to move forward, because I want to see what 64-bit is all about. But then again I do work with a lot of 32 and 16-bit apps still. I do have several machines here that can run XP just fine, or I could just put XP as part of the boot manager for Vista. I'd rather have one OS do it all!

One last thing is that I use a monitor that Sony doesn't make anymore (The FW900), but it's the best monitor around. I'm really wishing that when Vista comes out, they will create a driver for it because I'm using a BNC to VGA cable (Which I hear drivers are then required when it comes to gaming).

Tech_Greek wrote:I was under the assumption that 64 Bit OS could emulate the 32 Bit Programs which in turn can emulate a 16 Bit Program.

I'm personally going for Vista 64 Bit because once Vista is out drivers should start coming out for it in terms of printers, etc because they are pushing 64 bit system much more.

That's another thing. There will probably be a lot of support for Vista upon it's release. I just have to be patient.

BUT with the 64-bit emulation in XP 64-bit, my win32 apps like older games (i.e. Quake2) worked just fine. Although I had to run a DOS emulator to run pkunzip or even this other utility... I forgot what it was.. I think it was infozip and the program is still in development!

I vote NIETHER.

I've just mastered XP Pro from moving up from Win98SE. Now Vista is here.

DRM problems and other little hidden agenda nasties are not fully known yet with Vista. I'll let you and the other people test drive it for a year first pending those opinions.

Check out the EFF in my signature too. Type in Vista in the search window on the upper right column.

I have an HP All-in-One printer and I'm running 64bit XP. No issues.

I will be purchasing the 64-bit version, but only when I have to and have no other choice. I'm in no rush to upgrade and will wait until (most of) the bugs have been worked out of Vista... (guess I could be waiting for a while, eh? )

top wrote:One last thing is that I use a monitor that Sony doesn't make anymore (The FW900), but it's the best monitor around. I'm really wishing that when Vista comes out, they will create a driver for it because I'm using a BNC to VGA cable (Which I hear drivers are then required when it comes to gaming).

who told you? what has the driver to do with your bnc-cable? nothing.

Dandruff wrote:who told you? what has the driver to do with your bnc-cable? nothing.

Now, I remember a little more about the reasoning for the drivers and it's that it helps with the color in some way, but that's the only thing I do remember.

Here's a better reference: http://www.hardforum.com/showthread.php?t=952788

ah, they just say you have to manually install the driver because the monitor can't be detected by windows when using bnc cables.


ok, but vista will 100% have a driver for this old monitor (why shouldn't it, if even xp has one?) ...

Dandruff wrote:ok, but vista will 100% have a driver for this old monitor (why shouldn't it, if even xp has one?)

At first I couldn't find one on XP. But now that I look, I see it's listed as Sony GDM-FW900 (Microsoft).

And maybe a 64-bit driver will be necessary? I would like to see Sony release something like that for this monitor for Vista...

don't know if sony has to write a 64bit driver. it's just an *.inf file with the necessary data (supported resolutions, refreshrates ...), so the microsoft guys should have no problem to write the "driver" themselves ...

Dandruff wrote:ah, they just say you have to manually install the driver because the monitor can't be detected by windows when using bnc cables.


ok, but vista will 100% have a driver for this old monitor (why shouldn't it, if even xp has one?) ...

Wasn't there talk last year that hardware built after July 2006 or was that 2005 would work with Vista without an issue and the older stuff was a hit-or-miss without certification???

maybe, but i can't believe that you won't be able to drive such a monitor under vista. they must and will have drivers included for this monitor.