Vista: Should I Install 64-bit or 32-bit Version? (x64 vs x86)

Contributor Icon Contributed by Hack_Vista Date Icon June 12, 2006  
Tag Icon Tagged: Microsoft Vista

Deciding which Vista version to install can be a difficult decision and can really limit what you can do with your system. Here are practical hints which should help a user decide which version to install. I decided to write this guide after installing 64-bit and 32-bit vista systems on several test boxes.


With the gaining popularity of 64-bit chipsets/processors, many users now have the ability to run either 64-bit versions (x64) or 32-bit versions (x86) of software and operating systems. However, if you only have a 32-bit processor, your choice is easy…

You can only install the x64 version of Vista if you have a 64-bit processor.

For those with 64-bit processors, it seems obvious that installing the x64 version of vista would be ideal. The x64 version has increased security based around the 64-bit structure and programs compiled for 64-bit processors will likely run faster.

What’s the problem with installing Vista x64 on a 64-bit system?

1. Most hardware does not currently have 64-bit drivers.

Out of all the boxes that I have installed x64 Vista on, I could always get it to boot up. However, the lack of 64-bit drivers for many hardware devices typically left me without any chance of burning DVDs or listening to audio. Networking devices and card readers were frequently not supported as well. Vista x64 is pretty but it’s not very fun without network access or audio.

2. In Vista x64, any driver that is not properly signed will not be able to enter the kernel and will fail to load.

Think how many times you have ignored that warning that a certain hardware driver is not properly signed. With vista x64, if your driver has not be blessed by Microsoft, it will not work. Forget about it.

I have tired to get around this by booting with the F8 option Disable Driver Signature. It doesn’t make a difference.

3. Vista x64 currently does not backward support most x86 (32-bit) drivers.

For the most part 64-bit systems run 32-bit applications very well. However, vista x64 doesn’t run x86 drivers… at least at this stage.

4. Vista x64 does not support 16-bit software.

You may think that you never, ever run 16-bit software. However, XP actually handles this legacy fairly well.

5. Very little x64 software currently exists.

x64 software runs better on a x64 system with an x64 OS. Currently, however, there is very little x64 software out there. If you have that magical combination, you do get a nice performance boost. Currently, however, this combination is way to far ahead of the curve.

Conclusion:

Most users with 64-bit hardware should install the 32-bit (x86) version of Vista.

Vista x64 is the turning point for operating systems as they transition to 64-bit. Currently, however, the majority of users will be very disappointed by installing Vista x64. The lack of 64-bit drivers for most current hardware will be very disappointing and frustrating to most users. Why push for 64-bit now anyway? The performance gains promised by 64-bit will not be seen for years until 64-bit compiled versions of software is the norm.

Previous recipe | Next recipe |
 

Viewing 44 Comments

    • ^
    • v
    Thanks for sharing the article, I was a bit confused myself on what too install, imma going to stick with 32bit, if I go Vista at all :-)
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah, awesome recipe. Gift certificate coming your way, h_v.

    Davak
    • ^
    • v
    I have installed the 64 bit Vista on numerous machines. All of these machines worked flawlessly. The networking ability is excellent, all the drivers were working good, and the overall experience is very sweet! As for the driver signature issue. I did have one incident at startup where I had to use f8 and disable it. I simply turned off the driver signature option from the comand line and havent had to worry about it since! So far, any driver I have needed, i have used the 64 bit XP driver if there wasnt a Vista driver and they work excellent! (Bcdedit.exe –set nointegritychecks ON <<turns off the driver signature enforcement at startup) I also use the 32 bit version on my laptop which is also very easy and does have great hardware support. My dell 110L had all drivers installed and working after the optional update. The two main systems I have installed the 64 bit OS on are as follows: asus SLI x16 motherboard with gforce6800, 2gigs corsair xms ddr400, raid 0 dual 80gig hitachi drives, dvd 16x burner, amd 64 3000 socket 939 processor overclocked to 2.4 gigs. Then my main system: chaintech ZNF3 250GB motherboard, 7.1 envy sound, 16x dvd burner, 1gig crucial ballistix ddr400 (running at 450) AMD 64 3000 socket 754 processor overclocked to 2.7 gigs, broadcom gigabit ethernet, raid 0 with two seagate barracuda SATA drives, and a 19 inch flat panel widescreen monitor. Im not sure what kind of systems this author was using, but 3 out of 3 systems I have personally used with the new vista beta2 64 bit ultimate edition have all worked flawlessly and my friends system which is a gigabyte SLI motherboard also did too with no problems. Thinkin maybe the author should upgrade to a more recent system that has 64 bit support in the first place or try the 64 bit XP drivers for the issues he may be having. Just a thought! If anything the only way to truly know is to try it out for yourself on your own system, but denying yourself the 64 bit full experience because of one author's misfortunes, or lack of knowledge on the subject would be a grave error for your soon to be vista 64 bit awesome experience.
    • ^
    • v
    ive had 64 bits on my dell and i couldnt installl certain antivirus and programs
    so i converted to 32 bits and it gave me a better experience with it
    i just wished that microsoft would talk to programing companies to make them 64 before unleashing vista 64

    you were luckyy
    • ^
    • v
    Just another thought. If you want a very cool OS with crazy graphic interface like a 3d cubed multidesktop environment, you should try Suse Linux 10.1 Now that is a very sweet operating system with no bugs and super easy install. I have it dual booted with vista on my laptop. Very awesome setup!
    • ^
    • v
    My chaintech system also has the microsoft 6000 laser mouse and a G-15 logitech keyboard. Just wanted to mention the drivers for both also work great with vista 64bit all my LCD mods are working and the program speedfan works great too!(speedfan shows fan speeds and temperatures for your system as well as other things) Just in case some of you have this amazing keyboard you can have no fear! Works great!! I have also played the fiollowing games on vista64 thus far: Doom 3, call of duty2, condition zero and all steam games!, UT2004, GTA san andreas, and Painkiller. All of which work excellent. (I run a gforce 512mb 6800 asus card in the chaintech mobo.)
    • ^
    • v
    I'm glad that you've had a positive experience with vista x64. You are the exception.

    Many places across the internet have documented, as I have, that setting nointegritychecks ON frequently doesn't work and other times will allow a driver to be installed that fargs the whole system. However, that is a good idea if you have your back against the wall. I need to write that up as a quick tutorial as well.

    I have installed on multiple systems--many of which have been recently purchased for just this purpose. Every system had some driver that could not be installed. The XPx64 driver typically did not work. Many of the XP x64 drivers are not digitally signed.

    It's well known that vista will not allow drivers that are not signed:
    http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060201-6...

    The obvious compromise for power users is to find 64-bit drivers for all of their hardware prior to installing vista x64.
    • ^
    • v
    The only non signed driver I used was for my silicon image raid controller (3114) which in order for vista to start I had to disable the driver signature enforcement every time, untill I fully disabled it. personally I have years of experience dealing with these types of issues and resolving them and I have seen many others with much difficulty. Most these difficulties occur due to lack of knowledge and lack of microsoft's ability to have a new operating system that can run seemlessly. I have installed many linux distributions, beta and new and old and none have had any of the problems for which microsoft has on every distribution since the beginning of time. Makes me wonder why they cant figure out a better process after all these years! I could understand if it was just new hardware, but old hardware has been around for so long that drivers should be easily acquired! Just my opinion but if other companies are able to succeed then microsoft should be able to follow suite. At least partial compatability with minimal functionality untill the proper drivers are made (from the initial install)
    • ^
    • v
    The obvious compromise for power users is to find 64-bit drivers for all of their hardware prior to installing vista x64.


    Yes I agree!
    • ^
    • v
    Woah, now we are in agreement, and in some sense Microsoft has insured that most hardware will at least boot with input and video support--even with x64. My point was that most average users will have some piece of hardware that will not work easily with x64. Reading other vista forums around the net, I see a ton of try this and try that driver work-arounds.

    I have seen problems with linux installs too. I think people just expect all their hardware not to work with those. ;)

    I think 64-bit is the way of the future. I just think that _most_ users will have a much easier time testing and enjoying vista by installing the 32-bit version--for now.

    Ubergeeks like you and I are always going to install both versions multiple times over. The article was crafted for those who just want to try it out and use it. Most users will get to use and enjoy vista quicker and easier by installing x86; most users will not see much performance gain by going pure x64 today.
    • ^
    • v
    Yeah there really isnt much performance difference that ive noticed, although the stability seems to be a bit on the upper side compared to 32 bit. As I mentioned before I have my system highly overclocked which enabled me to more noticeably tell the difference between the two. on the 64 bit I can actually run my cpu at 2.8 gigs stable and smooth where with 32 bit it pulls errors and is by no means stable at that speed. 2.7gigs is max on the 32 bit. (AMD 64 3000 venice core socket 754 processor originally runs at 2.0 gigs) Just an interesting fact I noticed while playing around at 3 in the morning haha!
    • ^
    • v
    • ^
    • v
    I must say, looking at a lot of websites, this is by far the best article on the new Vista 32bit and 64bit. Good job!
    • ^
    • v
    If i have understod it corectly you need a 64bit os to make use of more than 2GB ram. Is the system performance with 4gb instad of 2gb a mayor improvement? (will be playing some games like vanguard (online rpg) and using it for work and some software developement.

    Anyone know if the x-fi creative cards got 64 bit drivers?
    • ^
    • v
    I think the OP is a little ignorant of the subject.
    To have microsoft digitally sign a driver for your hardware, you have to provide functioning versions of both x32-bit and x64-bit.

    I've installed x64-bit on dozens of custom machines in-shop since Vista's release, and I've not had a problem yet.
    • ^
    • v
    Aehm, I installed a 64-bit Vista on my Desktop, and it hasn't got any problem. Indeed, it can emulate the 4 GbRAM I installed, instead of 2.5 XP x86 emulated. I think it's more powerful, and I got no problem with the drivers. Anyway, nice review, I still keep thinking Windows XP is better than Vista, but if you have a VERY powerful PC, go ahead with Vista x64. Byes!
    • ^
    • v
    I recently built myself an AMD dual processor pc with an ATI video card, audio, networking, 4GB ddr2 memory and 320 GB hard sata hard drive and dvd rw, media reader and wireless keyboard and mouse, usb ready boost drive,windows mobile interface to dell x51v,lexmark all in one printer. I have Vista 64 bit premium installed and it works great, does anything I want, Video, gaming, internet, etc. etc. I love it. I run chrome, Fast and Faster.
    • ^
    • v
    i got my computer with vista 64-bit SP1 on it. is it possible to switch to 32-bit and how would i do so if i can?
    • ^
    • v
    This article is more than 2 years old at this point. Vista 64 certaily runs a lot more at this point than it did when the article was written. For those still likeing XP... remember how you hated XP when it came out. Change is hard.

    HOWEVER, althought I have been running Vista since its beta days, have really gotten to love its quicker performance and easier functionality, the 64 bit system still has some hiccups that, quite frankly, with Microsoft's emphasis on 64 bit technology, I do not understand. If you can shed some light, I would appreciate it.

    MS Groove 2007 does not allow full program functionality when running on a 64 bit machine (file-sharing spaces are unavailable). Additionally, there are somecontrol pannel features that are only available in the 32 bit view - Mail and Text-to-speach for example.

    Thanks for any input. An update to this article would be really cool!
    • ^
    • v
    I have Vista x64 installed because I have plenty of RAM on my system - 6GB. I had expected that with 6 gigs of RAM, I can run 32-bit programs in WinXP SP2 compatibility mode (Vista x64 runs 32-bit programs in protected memory space) and they'll be much more stable, with more system resources at their disposal.

    However, that isn't the case. I've had plenty of compatibility problems with 32-bit programs, especially those that do low-level hardware calls. For instance, DVDx doesn't work well with my system because it uses ASPI to call the DVD/CD drive. It'll crash after a while.

    Command & Conquer 3 constantly crashes between 15 minutes to 90 minutes of gameplay due to the display driver crashing (it's the latest Catalyst 8.9 x64 drivers). I've had no such problems running these applications under XP SP3, but I'm limited by the amount of RAM that XP can use.

    Other than that, I've had no driver problems whatsoever because my hardware is still relatively current - P43 chipset, E2180 processor, Radeon 3850, a few 500GB and 640GB hard drives, etc.

    File transfer across my home network are blazing fast compared to XP. Heck, I think the TCP/IP stack has been reworked also because my downloads (BitTorrent included) are much faster than with XP (torrents that regularly slog about at 20kB/s in XP now regularly hit 70-80kB/s in Vista X64. They're the same downloads, I just continue them in Vista x64 after uTorrent finish checking the files).

    Multitasking with applications that do not cause compatibility problems is simply superb. I have uTorrent running while I use Office 2007 to do my stuff, at the same time the antivirus is running a full check and I'm ripping a DVD with AGK. Everything runs smoothly, no hitches, no slowdowns. Simply amazing.
    • ^
    • v
    Look at the date of this article (above 6-6-06) something seems suspicious here, or else it is way out of date. So it either is very old info, or incorrct info at best.