Vista 32 or 64 bit edition?

[AlexV]

It`s a bit of an exxageration. The uber control(which isn`t necessarily so uber, see the way some ppl are running Vista without licensing it) is under Vista X64, where only signed drivers can be used(if they`re signed but not WHQL they`re still OK AFAIK), so no, I don`t think MS can really pressure anyone with anything. Market demand OTOH can be a pretty big pressure applying element, and that`s what I hope will happen.

 

[KimB]

Depends what your trying to do with it.
I was largely interested in Media applications, where it becomes an issue with Linux is where you only have precompiled libs/executables. The Flash player plugin for Firefox isn't available as a 64 bit library. Now you can build/obtain a 32 bit version of Firefox, run it under 64 bit linux and make it work.
I also had issues with the audio drivers for my particular hardware.
YMMV but I had a lot less issues with the 32 bit version.

Yeah, decent 64-bit Linux distributions (such as SUSE) are aware of this issue and ship with the 32-bit version of Firefox. Anyway, usually in Linux there is at least a way around just about any 64-bit issue you come up with. I know I didn't have the same experience with Windows XP 64-bit.

I also installed both 64 and 32 bit versions of the vista RC's with much the same experience, 64 bit wasn't worth the hassle.

Yeah, which is highly unfortunate. The main reason why I'm not running 64-bit Windows XP right now is that my CD burner software didn't work, and there were no 64-bit drivers for my TV tuner. The problem, it seems, is that any kernel-level software needs to be 64-bit to work in 64-bit Windows. This is primarily a problem with hardware drivers, but the issue may crop up with respect to some copy protection schemes, low-level software (like Powerstrip), and CD burners (though I expect CD burning software to ship with Vista).

 

[pcchen]

IIRC you can run "unsigned" driver under 64 bits too, provided if you run in a special "allow unsigned driver" mode, which can be enabled in the same way as safety mode. It won't be user friendly though. You just can't tell your users to enable that mode every time they boot up their computers. It's mostly for driver development.

About the 64 bits thing, I really do think Vista can be a driving force for 64 bits drivers and maybe applications. Many of our customers are already building 64 bits drivers for Vista. However, the pressure on 64 bits applications are much less, as in most case 32 bits applications can run fine on 64 bits OS, and most customers just don't care whether it's 64 bits or 32 bits. Furthermore, Microsoft cleaned the driver model way back in the Windows NT time for 64 bits compatibility, but the Win32 API is really only "cleaned" at the time 64 bits XP shipped, so expect applications to be lag behind the 64 bits transition.

 

[Rodéric]

Any performance sensitive app should really be available in 64bit for those running such an OS, for I get big hit when running 32bit games on 64bit Vista.
(25-50% hit compared to 32bit Vista)

 

[Blazkowicz]

The media has both version on it, but the product key will only allow activation once. I 'm not sure it allows switching from 32bit to 64bit -- I doubt they'd be that lienient.

didn't they rapildy give up that idea?
(most stupid idea ever. very hostile to the end user, and would be perceived as a despicable extortion scheme)

 

[Blazkowicz]

IIRC you can run "unsigned" driver under 64 bits too, provided if you run in a special "allow unsigned driver" mode, which can be enabled in the same way as safety mode. It won't be user friendly though. You just can't tell your users to enable that mode every time they boot up their computers. It's mostly for driver development.

good news, then. I'm hoping you'll be able to use that mode with a few characters in boot.ini or whatever?
requiring signed drivers seems stupid to me especially for a driver-starved OS. 3rd party, freeware/open source drivers are not very common but they do exist and can be useful : kxproject drivers for creative labs cards, ext2 or reiserFS support, driver for a playstation or SNES pad connected to a // port, voodoo1 driver for X64..

well, few people use that crap (except maybe kxpro]ect !) but still quite a number could develop or hack some driver (basing it on linux driver source perhaps) to use their gamepad, printer, whatever, even some kind of graphics card, etc.

 

[bloodbob]

The wii controller driver even. Yeah its one of the reason why I'm considering not purchasing it. Frankly its got nothing to do with security as MS isn't even signing these drivers it appears just to be a deal with some of the major Certificate Authorities to make them money as you need to go out and buy an expensive certificate.

 

[Gnerma]

One fatty G reputation point to anybody who can dig up a definitive statement about this "switch between 32 & 64 bit" issue. Thats an unmistakable statement straight from the horses mouth not "yeah I think they will/won't allow it because...".

I still haven't seen anything solid about this anywhere on the web. My free Business edition should be here within the next month or so and I don't want to install the 32 bit version if it kills my chance at free 64 bit later on.

 

[rendezvous]

Hello,

I got a new computer (ASUS A8Js notebook) a couple of weeks ago.
The computer came with windows XP Professional preinstalled and I am also eligible for the Express Windows Vista Update Program.
In the flyer from ASUS about the program it says that since I run the vanilla versiion of XP I'm only eligible for 32-bit Vista. When i entered the upgrade site i could however select either the 32-bit or 64-bit Vista upgrade DVD.

So the question I have is if I should try the 64-bit version.

Will the 64-bit version even work when upgrading from a 32-bit XP Pro?

After reading through this thread I think that the benefits are low. I only have 2G RAM installed, and i don't think i'll upgrade that amount (not even sure that it is possible). The one benefit i could see is from the extended registers. I do some programming on my own (mostly offline rendering).

Thaks for the comments so far in this thread and I would apretiate some input to help me select the correct version.

 

[Rangers]

Well, the one thing that'll eventually force people to 64bit is RAM. 32bit has a 2GB per app limit, which, some games like 2GB already..so I can see some pressure being put on that limit, thereby forcing adoption of 64-bit Vista. It just depends how quickly that occurs. I dont see any other particular reason users would EVER be forced to 64 bit (a little performance gain here and there is not going to matter) but the RAM limit will get them eventually.

All in all, what a pain in the ass. I still couldn't tell you which version I'd install. I'm leaning 64 bit, and hope all my programs work.

 

[KimB]

Well, I think that at some point, everybody is going to be upgrading to 64-bit. The best point at which to do this should be when you get 4GB of RAM. Installing the 64-bit version now would likely be worth a few headaches now in order to not perform an OS install later.

 

[willardjuice]

Well, I think that at some point, everybody is going to be upgrading to 64-bit. The best point at which to do this should be when you get 4GB of RAM. Installing the 64-bit version now would likely be worth a few headaches now in order to not perform an OS install later.

And it's pretty cool to see the "64-bit enabled" on Half-Life 2 also.

 

[Rangers]

Well, I think that at some point, everybody is going to be upgrading to 64-bit. The best point at which to do this should be when you get 4GB of RAM. Installing the 64-bit version now would likely be worth a few headaches now in order to not perform an OS install later.

Yep, that's my basic thought. Also, not only would you have to reninstall later, but according to this thread some people think you might have to buy the 64-bit version as well!

And it's pretty cool to see the "64-bit enabled" on Half-Life 2 also.

This is another thing that could force some 64-bit adoption in the near future, I already hear I think the Epic and Crysis guys talking about needing 64-bit for full performance. Just a little of that goes a long way with the SLI/3Dmark set.

 

[Fox5]

Yep, that's my basic thought. Also, not only would you have to reninstall later, but according to this thread some people think you might have to buy the 64-bit version as well!



This is another thing that could force some 64-bit adoption in the near future, I already hear I think the Epic and Crysis guys talking about needing 64-bit for full performance. Just a little of that goes a long way with the SLI/3Dmark set.

From benchmarks I've seen, the Core 2 Duo series of cpus takes a performance hit from enabling 64 bit, even in instances athlon 64s get a performance boosts. (so at some tasks, it puts them at almost a mhz per mhz parity)

 

[pcchen]

good news, then. I'm hoping you'll be able to use that mode with a few characters in boot.ini or whatever?

Last time I checked, it works like pressing F8 or something similar when booting the Windows (like how you do when you want to enable safe mode) and there will be an option for enabling this "unsigned driver" mode.

requiring signed drivers seems stupid to me especially for a driver-starved OS. 3rd party, freeware/open source drivers are not very common but they do exist and can be useful : kxproject drivers for creative labs cards, ext2 or reiserFS support, driver for a playstation or SNES pad connected to a // port, voodoo1 driver for X64..

The idea behind a signed driver is to improve security. Currently in Windows XP an application can install a kernel mode driver silently behind the scene. That means any application running under administrator mode can go into ring 0 without telling anyone. That's not very good for security. Requiring a driver to be signed, the OS can prompt the user before an application trying to install a kernel mode driver, and let the user know where the driver really came from (the user still have to decide whether the driver is safe). Basically, driver signing is different from WHQL: Microsoft doesn't care about what you do in your driver, they just sign it with your name (basically saying "Microsoft checked that this driver is actually written by A").

I don't know about the cost of the signing procedure, but it shouldn't be more expensive than a SSL certificate.

 

[freakofsociety]

One fatty G reputation point to anybody who can dig up a definitive statement about this "switch between 32 & 64 bit" issue. Thats an unmistakable statement straight from the horses mouth not "yeah I think they will/won't allow it because...".

I still haven't seen anything solid about this anywhere on the web. My free Business edition should be here within the next month or so and I don't want to install the 32 bit version if it kills my chance at free 64 bit later on.

bad news...


Can I upgrade from a 32-bit version of Windows to a 64-bit version of Windows?


No. If you are currently running a 32-bit version of Windows, you can only upgrade to another 32-bit version of Windows. Similarly, if you are running a 64-bit version of Windows, you can only upgrade to another 64-bit version of Windows.

this and some other questions can be found at http://windowshelp.microsoft.com/Windows/en-US/Help/41531554-d5ef-4f2c-8fb9-149bdc5c8a701033.mspx

i would assume that they mean both XP and Vista since they use the general Windows name.

 

[bloodbob]

That's not very good for security. Requiring a driver to be signed, the OS can prompt the user before an application trying to install a kernel mode driver, and let the user know where the driver really came from (the user still have to decide whether the driver is safe). Basically, driver signing is different from WHQL: Microsoft doesn't care about what you do in your driver, they just sign it with your name (basically saying "Microsoft checked that this driver is actually written by A").

I don't know about the cost of the signing procedure, but it shouldn't be more expensive than a SSL certificate.

I don't really see how you can tell or not a driver is safe by who made it. Can you name a single vendor who has had perfect drivers? And why can't you make a decision on wether or not a driver is safe by other mean then the certificate i.e. you built it yourself. If a prompt was displayed saying Unsigned driver that would work fine but M$ has deliberately disable the FREE option. Not only that every time you change your driver you need it resigned with an SSL certificate you only do it once ( well every X years ).

Most importantly is there an legal requirement for Microsoft to accept your driver signing application?

The real solution if you want to go down this path is to allow users to Add their own trust CA certificates and allow users to the sign drivers.

 

[KimB]

I don't really see how you can tell or not a driver is safe by who made it. Can you name a single vendor who has had perfect drivers?

Ah, but this disallows, say, the programmer of some random free download game from including kernel-level code that installs without the user's notice. Seems like it may make things a bit harder on spyware.

 

[bloodbob]

Ah, but this disallows, say, the programmer of some random free download game from including kernel-level code that installs without the user's notice. Seems like it may make things a bit harder on spyware.

You missed this bit.

If a prompt was displayed saying Unsigned driver that would work fine but M$ has deliberately disable the FREE option

 

[KimB]

Well, if they're going to charge for it, that is really dirty. If Microsoft is going to force developers from doing this, they shouldn't force companies to pay for the service.