A question of Windows OS, 32 bit vs 64 bit

[Bahamut2000X]

Well I was out actively looking for an OS to finally get my computer running and my brother keeps pushing me to get Vista 64-bit edition to run on my 64 bit processor. Now I've finally come to the realization that the only way for me to get Vista 64-bit is to either spend well over 300 dollars on the Ultimate edition, or 200+ on Home Premium and THEN additional funds to Microsoft directly to have them mail me a 64 Bit disc. On the reverse end I'm looking into 64 Bit XP as I suspect it to be cheaper but I haven't had any luck finding a 64 bit version in a store.

So my question is is there any non overly priced 64 Bit OS out there for me, or will a 32 bit honestly suffice on my 64 bit capable processor? I just want to hear back from some more computer oriented folks before I go out wasting more time and money on finding an OS (honestly the hardest part of rebuilding my computer)

[XxSephirothxX]

I used 64-bit XP for awhile, and it ran a bit faster, but finding drivers was a godawful bitch. So be aware of that in advance.

[Bahamut2000X]

Yeah I just went around reading this site benchmarking and comparing data between the two and 64 bit seems rather worthless unless you push your system to extreme limits, like 4 gig + of ram and other such extremes before you see real differences. Before then it's not noticeable by much and in many cases slower.

So my big question comes down to this. Will there be issues on my 64 bit capable processor in running a 32 bit OS? My brother tells me it will suck, but he also didn't know ANYTHING about the changes to the interfaces on hardware and the change in wires and connections.

[Shoeberto]

In my experiences, you don't really lose any performance running a 32-bit OS on a 64-bit CPU. Consumer 64-bit CPUs are made to be compatible, able to run in either mode. So you won't suffer a performance loss versus running a regular 32-bit CPU at the same level, you just won't gain the extra performance you would if you ran a 64-bit OS for your processor. The tradeoff is that things will work just as you expect them to.

[Mirage]

The RAM limit is 4 GB per core, IIRC, and most CPUs are dualcore now. You won't lose any performance running a 32bit OS on a 64bit CPU, compared to running a 32bit OS on an equally powerful 32bit CPU.

I'd run 64bit windows if all my hardware had good 64bit drivers, but I'm not sure it does. You won't suffer a performance loss with running 32bit applications on a 64bit OS after all.

And who said you have to *buy* the OS? ;)

[Bahamut2000X]

True Mirage. XD

Though I'm still split on what OS to run, I keep hearing bad things about Vista. But XP I know has a huge target list of virus for it. I'm half inclined to just stick to my old windows 2000 disc, but I figure it's time for an upgrade.

[rubah]

If you arent' dumb, you can easily avoid viruses for xp even without installing patches etc.

[Bahamut2000X]

Well it's not so much the viruses I worry about, it's the spy ware. When I ran XP I had spy ware galore to the point it killed my system, even with my anti spy ware on full blast it copied itself faster then I could delete it. Switched to 2000 and never had any spy ware or virus' in 3 years of it running.

Though I'm tempted to get Vista just because it's new and will become a standard OS in coming years so long as Microsoft doesn't botch it and I can always upgrade to 64 bit later when it's a better mode to run in.

But I keep hearing Vista is still so full of errors and full of blue screens of death that it makes me think it almost isn't worth it.

[Shoeberto]

In my experience with Vista, I really didn't like how they treated you like an idiot. But I never used it first hand, it was always fixing problems for people who didn't know the first thing about customizing, so it's possible you could make it feel like a big boy OS instead of a toddler toy.

I think Vista SP1 is set to hit soon, which is the landmark I know a lot of tech enthusiasts were waiting for before taking the plunge into a change over. Maybe see if a friend has it, or go to a tech store and play around on their demo computers with Vista and see what you think of the interface. I don't think bugginess is going to be a problem. It's going to come more down to personal preference.

However, I'd advise against 2000. Even though it is probably the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever released, it's quickly becoming obsolete. I know people will rip me for saying that, but really, I'd lean towards looking either solely at XP or Vista. And, between those, it'll come down to how you like your interface and how much you care about the "features" that Vista has.

[rubah]

Well it's not so much the viruses I worry about, it's the spy ware. When I ran XP I had spy ware galore to the point it killed my system, even with my anti spy ware on full blast it copied itself faster then I could delete it. Switched to 2000 and never had any spy ware or virus' in 3 years of it running.

I had the same results when I stopped using IE instead of firefox. Seriously, instead of hundreds of results on adaware and avg, none.

[Bahamut2000X]

However, I'd advise against 2000. Even though it is probably the most secure OS that Microsoft has ever released, it's quickly becoming obsolete.

Ya that was half the reason I'm looking into a newer system. 2000 has already impeded me from being able to install several things I wanted to (such as my free VB program from my old VB class), and I really feel like I need a more current OS to go with my new system. I mean I would be slightly embarrassed to still be on an old OS like 2000 after finally getting a dual core processor and getting past the half gig of ram mark finally.

Though I'm kind of pressed on getting an OS since I honestly want to get one either today or tomorrow so I can finally get my system running and be off this monstrosity of a lap top.

My main gripes come down to I know XP and I can use it, but I hate how vulnerable I was in the past with it, even though I have better knowledge of security now then I did 5 years ago. However I have no idea on Vista as I haven't even seen it in use, let alone worked on a Vista OS. So I just don't know anything about it, except it got released too early.

[Citizen Bleys]

For the record, Vista SP1 is already out.

I'd recommend going with XP over Vista. Vista won't become the standard, it's a mistake, like Windows ME was. I think even Micros~! realizes that now, which is why I've heard they're pushing to release a new OS fairly soon, called "Windows 7" from my source, who may be completely full of himno.

[Mirage]

Um guys. XP and 2000 are essentially the same OS. Any virus or bug that exists for XP, also exists for 2000. There's no logical reason to choose 2000 over XP anymore, except if you want the oldschool windows flag on your start menu button.

Vista works nicely, but it likes to use a lot more resources than XP, though it can still be slimmed down to about the same as XP uses, if you know what to do. Then you're essentially left with a more stable XP, and a few new features. Oh also, a few select applications will have problems starting in Vista out-of-the-box, but can usually be tweaked to work.

[crono_logical]

Unless you've got 4 GB or more of RAM or some special 64-bit application to run, I'd stick with 32-bit XP on that machine Vista's a resource hog Or you could download Ubuntu, no-one said it had to be Windows you use - easy way to get a free 64-bit OS

[Bahamut2000X]

I finally got me XP 32 bit. Now it's just the fun part of installing it and getting my system up and running.

Unless you've got 4 GB or more of RAM or some special 64-bit application to run, I'd stick with 32-bit XP on that machine

Yeah that's what I told my brother after I did some research on what 64 bit actually is, and he still is telling me I should get Vista 64 bit. But then again this coming from a guy who didn't realize all the changes to hardware in the past 3 years.