Probably a dumb question but oh well

Was looking into ordering a copy of Vista Home Basic for my new system.  Noticed there is a 32-bit retail with the option for a 64-bit version.  So whats the real difference between the two.  Everything in this system says its ready for 64-bit.  But why spend the extra if theres not much difference.  Main thing is performance and what the 64-bit version has over the 32.  Which version would be a good choice.

System specs:

Intel Core Duo E6850 processor, 3.0 GHz, 1333 Mhz FSB.  (Release is today so should be ordering it by next week.)
2 Gigs of PC8500 DDR2 Dual Chanel RAM.
512 MB PCI-E DX10 GeForce 8500GT 128-Bit GDDR2 Graphics Card.

THIS

motherboard.
160 GB SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive
430W Thermaltake PSU
DVD/CD Burner
Windows Vista...when version is selected.

System is very near completion.  With Vista and a processor it will finally be ready to fire up for the first time.  Hoping to have it running in the next 2-3 weeks

Get 64 bit, I run it and have no problems, Windows Vista ultimate 64 bit. Sure no 64 bit programs yet, But they will come in time, I have no problems what so ever, and in the rare case that I do, XP is on the drive as well, you'll love it.

Gunny

well, just get 32-bit.  u hav no need for 64-bit,

untill u actually need it, stick with 32-bit.  whilst there is no significant difference between the two, u may as well stick with the tried, and tested, and most secure method (32-bit)...

As I said before, it's all about software support.

http://www.tech-recipes.com/rx/1426/vista_64_bit_or_32_bit_version_x64_vs_x86

32bit is for boys
64bit is for men

If you dont want to deal with the little quarks that may arrise such as having to find a 64bit driver every now and then, stay with 32bit unless you want to have full 'true' support for memory mapping over 3.2gig.

You are not going to see any massive game performance change, although I find all MSFS versions run smoother on x64.

But when the new games and titles start being 64bit addressed, you will be missing quite a bit. that just wont be for another year or so.

So unless you are willing to deal with a few driver problems and workarounds, stay with what is easy for you.

dcunning30 wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 5:31pm:



Market?  LOL

Dont make me laugh. The market is already there. It comes down to how long are they going to try and overstuff the plumbing and suck up the gravy.

They have no choice they are running out of address space for dataflow

Phil Taylor even admits FSX would be better ported to 64bit but was under the gun to remain in 32 but the amount of data per millisecond is over the top for 32bit to run which is why the ground texture blur issues and stutters.

You may see a FS11 x64

EDIT: Let me rephrase... not 'under the gun', but the base code was already x32 and the amount of work to port to x64 would have been too much for the project so that, and the fact that the world is still not keen to x64, kept things as they were.

They have no choice. The need to move to x64 if they expect to continue to up the data flow for software such as a simulator or other very high bandwidth product.

Video encoding is the same and the better systems moved to x64 several years ago.

Its not a matter of if, its a matter of when

Nick N wrote on Jul 24^th, 2007 at 5:35pm:


And why is he under the gun?  Let me help you with this.  the technology folks always want to do the coolest and slickest apps, but it's the degree of success in the market that keeps the technology folks taking a paycheck.  The market drives what will be and what will not be released!  Currently, there's a whole lot of copies of FSX on the shelves and a whole lot of copies of FSX on ebay at cut rate prices.  Notwithstanding the enthusiasts here on simviation, FSX is not that big of a success in the market precisely because of it's steep hardware curve.  You start putting 64 bit apps on the shelves in the next year or so and they'll for the most part, remain on those shelves.

Quote:


That makes sense, but that'll be a port.  There will be a 32 bit version first.

Quote:


That makes twice you've make my point for me.

Quote:


I agree.  But only when the installed base of 64 bit operating systems is sufficiently large, they'll know they'll sell enough copies where they can make a profit.

Quote:


I've never disagreed with that.

Well, the retail version is 32-bit.  Seem to only be able to get the OEM version in 64-bit right now.  But as of Sunday afternoon I managed to snag a brand new full retail version of Home Basic for $115 including shipping.  In fact the guy still has 29 copies on

Ebay

at the moment if anyones interested (Theres only about 16 hours left on it though.)  According to what I found there is information on how to get the 64-bit version included with the retail.  Depending on the extra cost, if any, I will probably go ahead with the 64-bit.  All the hardware is ready for it even if the softwares not.  Will probably get the disk in the mail within the next couple days.  Wont have a processor for a couple weeks yet so I have a little time to wait on a 64-Bit version to arrive if necessary.

Just figured I would ask before I got everything together and ready to install.  Didn't think there was to big of a difference but wanted to make sure.  Hopefully this new system wont be like my past and have to be wiped out every year, so once Windows is installed I don't want to mess with upgrading again later on.  So 64-bit it is unless they say it will take forever and a day to get the disk or the code