"R. C. White" <rc@grandecom.net> wrote in message
news:44OdnW-En9CjfuvXnZ2dnUVZ_tKdnZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> Hi, Tim.
>
> No need to wonder about whether Vista Home Premium - or any other
> version - is available in 64-bit. ALL versions of Vista are available in
> both 32-bit and 64-bit editions. Just go to the official site to get all
> the details:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windows/win...ome-basic.aspx
>
> To compare 32-bit and 64-bit, just type "64 bit" into the search box.
>
> Remember that Vista has been on the market for nearly 3 years now. When
> it arrived in 2006, 32-bit was still the dominant platform, so most new
> computers - even 64-bit machines - came with 32-bit Vista pre-installed.
> At that time, many manufacturers of printers and other peripherals had not
> written 64-bit drivers for their hardware, because they did not yet see a
> market for those drivers. And many software developers had not yet
> produced versions of their software that would run in a 64-bit operating
> system.
>
> A lot has happened in the computer world in the last 3 years. Now, it's
> hard to find a new computer with a 32-bit CPU. And 64-bit drivers are not
> scarce anymore. But my perception is that many - and perhaps most -
> 64-bit computers still come with 32-bit Vista pre-installed.
>
> The good news is that a new buyer of 32-bit Vista can get the 64-bit
> version from Microsoft or from the computer OEM for a very low cost. I
> haven't needed it so I haven't checked it out, but I'm sure the answer is
> at that URL above. Of course, since it's a Gateway, it probably would be
> best to check the Gateway website first.
>
> RC
> --
> R. C. White, CPA
> San Marcos, TX
> rc@grandecom.net
> Microsoft Windows MVP
> Windows Live Mail 2009 (14.0.8064.0206) in Win7 Ultimate x64 RC 7100
>
To add a bit to this explanation...
Before considering a move from 32 bit to 64 bit Vista, especially on a
laptop, go to the laptop manufacturer's web site and *make sure* there are
64 bit drivers for every piece of hardware in the computer. I suspect that
many laptops early in the Vista era did not have 64 bit driver support,
another reason for shipping the 64 bit hardware with a 32 bit OS.
On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:50:08 -0400, Justin Thompson wrote:
> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:10:53 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
>
>> My neighbor just bought a Gateway T-1631 with an AMD Turion 64x2 chip and
>> it came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit.
>>
>> Is this typical of Gateway to match 32-bit Windows with a 64-bit chip?
>
> Are you al getting confused on the question? Not sure he is asking about
> Windows/Vista version 32 or 64 bit
>
> I think he may be asking about why he has a 64 bit processor with a 32 bit
> OS.
>
What got me to look in the first place was that I noticed it was not a fast
machine at all. In fact, I thought it was rather sluggish. This was my very
first hands-on experience with Vista, and didn't know what to expect.
I had my old workhorse PowerBook G4 1.66MHz with 2GB next to it, and my
neighbors were oohing and ahhing over its apparent speed and responsiveness.
I didn't want the neighbors to feel bad about their purchase, so I
whitewashed it with some jargon crap about Unix.
When I saw the Gateway had that chip and 3GB RAM, I wondered if 32-bit
Windows on a 64-bit chip could behave like that. I guess I was asking from
the angle of wondering if my neighbor could complain and get a 64-bit for
free.
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Tue, 4 Aug 2009 14:50:08 -0400, Justin Thompson wrote:
>> On Sun, 2 Aug 2009 23:10:53 -0400, Tim Murray <no-spam@thankyou.com> wrote:
>>
>>> My neighbor just bought a Gateway T-1631 with an AMD Turion 64x2 chip and
>>> it came with Vista Home Premium 32-bit.
>>>
>>> Is this typical of Gateway to match 32-bit Windows with a 64-bit chip?
>> Are you al getting confused on the question? Not sure he is asking about
>> Windows/Vista version 32 or 64 bit
>>
>> I think he may be asking about why he has a 64 bit processor with a 32 bit
>> OS.
>>
>
> What got me to look in the first place was that I noticed it was not a fast
> machine at all. In fact, I thought it was rather sluggish. This was my very
> first hands-on experience with Vista, and didn't know what to expect.
>
> I had my old workhorse PowerBook G4 1.66MHz with 2GB next to it, and my
> neighbors were oohing and ahhing over its apparent speed and responsiveness.
> I didn't want the neighbors to feel bad about their purchase, so I
> whitewashed it with some jargon crap about Unix.
>
> When I saw the Gateway had that chip and 3GB RAM, I wondered if 32-bit
> Windows on a 64-bit chip could behave like that. I guess I was asking from
> the angle of wondering if my neighbor could complain and get a 64-bit for
> free.
>
First, Vista is a slug compared to Windows XP when run on identical
hardware, and that explains Vista's underwhelming success in the
marketplace. Microsoft paid attention to eye candy with Vista and not
to common sense things like getting the job done that a computer is
intended to do. Microsoft shot itself in the foot with Vista and is now
madly trying to recover with Windows 7, which will be available by year
end or sooner.
Second, I understand that OS 9 and OS X were built on top of a Unix
kernel (BSD?), which explains why your PowerBook runs lean and mean.
The Unix and Linux crowd to which Apple is now firmly attached have done
sound software engineering for their operating system variants, and
Apple has done the same.
So you are comparing an operating system engineered (and actually
designed!) for good performance against software written by an
organization committed to bloatware forever to sell more and more new
hardware systems with ever more copies of Windows. If this sounds like
a condemnation of Microsoft's software engineering practices, well, it
is. Microsoft also has at least a few wrong-headed marketing types who
steered it down the treacherous Vista path.
The 64-bit version of Vista will do nothing to improve system
performance without a substantial memory upgrade. After all, the 64-bit
instructions are bigger than the 32-bit ones, not by a factor of two,
but programs are bigger, take up more disk space and take up more memory
when running. As for any speed advantage of 64-bit over 32-bit, ANY OS,
I'll believe it when I see it. The primary advantage of a 64-bit OS is
to provide greater memory addressability so that programs can be bigger
and can operate on ever larger data bases and elements of data (e.g.
PhotoShop and 12M pixel RAW photos)... Ben
On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:30:59 -0400, Ben Myers wrote:
> The primary advantage of a 64-bit OS is
> to provide greater memory addressability so that programs can be bigger
> and can operate on ever larger data bases and elements of data (e.g.
> PhotoShop and 12M pixel RAW photos)
Ahhh, great. So MS Office can have even more space to do what it wants to do,
instead of what *I* want it to do.
Tim Murray wrote:
> On Thu, 6 Aug 2009 01:30:59 -0400, Ben Myers wrote:
>> The primary advantage of a 64-bit OS is
>> to provide greater memory addressability so that programs can be bigger
>> and can operate on ever larger data bases and elements of data (e.g.
>> PhotoShop and 12M pixel RAW photos)
>
> Ahhh, great. So MS Office can have even more space to do what it wants to do,
> instead of what *I* want it to do.
>
YES! More memory for the Borg to assimilate... Ben Myers
Re: 32-bit Vista with a 64-bit AMD Gateway 
Linear Mode
