Making the case for Vista 64

http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1352

FWIW, I concur with the findings. Vista 64 is rock solid and fast for me.

Bob

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:48:39 GMT, Bob Levine <>
wrote:

>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1352
>
>FWIW, I concur with the findings. Vista 64 is rock solid and fast for me.
>
>Bob

I think it's a poorly written article.

There is no benchmark of Vista 32 vs. Vista 64, however he benchmarks
Vista 64 w 4GB of RAM and then with 8GB,

Results:

- 4GB = 1843.7
- 8GB = 1880.8

saying that the results can clearly be seen (meaning clearly
improved).

Yeah (lol) that is a whopping 2% improvement! (woo hoo let's have a
party).

His conclusion:

"To me, the benefits of Vista are clear - forget about 32-bit (if you
can), make the leap to 64-bit and buy as much RAM as you can afford
(of that your system can take)."

doesn't target a specific kind of user. For most people, 32 bit is
the best choice due to driver support, and money is best spent on
things other than as much RAM as one can afford.

I'll stick to the reviews on Tom's Hardware and a few other places
that do a much better job.

I read the cited article and left my comments:

"So 64-bit Vista is good to go after months of frittering around and
experimentation, plus beefing up the computer to 8GB of system memory? This is
hardly a ringing endorsement. Sounds more like a paean to bloatware to me! How
many people can afford to drop a lot of money on a system capable of running
64-bit Vista well? I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it? There's even a Micro$oft ad
on this very web page. What ever became of journalistic integrity? I continue to
feel good about my dropping out of the increasingly more tainted trade
journalist crowd years ago... Ben Myers"

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:48:39 GMT, Bob Levine <> wrote:

>http://blogs.zdnet.com/hardware/?p=1352
>
>FWIW, I concur with the findings. Vista 64 is rock solid and fast for me.
>
>Bob

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:44 -0500, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

> I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
>publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
>spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it?

Good review Ben esp. the text quoted above. They should be ashamed of
the spin and ashamed at the low-quality of the review. The author is
an idiot if he believes the benchmark shows anything positive.

Hi!

> FWIW, I concur with the findings. Vista 64 is rock
> solid and fast for me.

*If* (and this is a BIG if!) you can get drivers for your hardware,
there's nothing wrong with a 64-bit Windows operating system.

A smaller problem is that of Win16 applications. There aren't likely
to be many of these left in use, but there are some. The IBM Library
Reader for Windows comes to mind, and they still distribute it for
download and use.

Should you be able to make the upgrade, the ability to use more RAM
than 4GB and the improved kernel security are nice to have. I agree
with the comments about stability, but I haven't seen a great deal of
performance difference between 64 and 32 bit Windows. I've got a 64-
bit capable Celeron CPU (yes, they do exist!) and it performs very
well, though not necessarily any better than it does when running 32-
bit system software.

William

I guess I did do a sort of review of a review. As an old-time reviewer, it was
easy for me to do... Ben Myers

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:33:47 -0600, Journey <> wrote:

>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:44 -0500, Ben Myers
><> wrote:
>
>> I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
>>publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
>>spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it?
>
>Good review Ben esp. the text quoted above. They should be ashamed of
>the spin and ashamed at the low-quality of the review. The author is
>an idiot if he believes the benchmark shows anything positive.

Ben Myers wrote:
> I read the cited article and left my comments:
>
> "So 64-bit Vista is good to go after months of frittering around and
> experimentation, plus beefing up the computer to 8GB of system memory? This is
> hardly a ringing endorsement. Sounds more like a paean to bloatware to me! How
> many people can afford to drop a lot of money on a system capable of running
> 64-bit Vista well? I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
> publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
> spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it? There's even a Micro$oft ad
> on this very web page. What ever became of journalistic integrity? I continue to
> feel good about my dropping out of the increasingly more tainted trade
> journalist crowd years ago... Ben Myers"


So did you post comments on all the articles that are totally one sided
toward XP?

There's no doubt that Vista64 isn't for everyone and I don't see
anywhere in that article that the author says it is. He's simply saying
that if you're going to move to Vista, do it with the 64 bit version and
a damn powerful machine.

Bob

No, I did not post comments on any other ZD articles today. When I see one
worth commenting on, they hear from me. I commented on that one because you
posted its URL here, and it intrigued me. The author is taking serious flak
from just about everyone who comments on his piece.

I wish the author of the article had made his point as succinctly as you did.
But he didn't. The article had a lot of useless hype in it and it failed
completely to do any sort of comparison with 32-bit Vista, failing to justify
his conclusion about the wonders of 64-bit Vista.

I agree 100% with YOUR statement, made without hype and large piles of bull
dung: If you're going to move to Vista, do it with the 64 bit version and a
damn powerful machine. Right now Vista continues to be a big "if" for a lot of
people, because of the time that needs to be spent to move from one computer to
another, and the expenses of the basic computer hardware and the hardware to
replace that for which there are no Vista drivers, take your pick: 32-bit or
64-bit. Hence Vista's underwhelming success... Ben Myers

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 23:31:30 GMT, Bob Levine <> wrote:

>Ben Myers wrote:
>> I read the cited article and left my comments:
>>
>> "So 64-bit Vista is good to go after months of frittering around and
>> experimentation, plus beefing up the computer to 8GB of system memory? This is
>> hardly a ringing endorsement. Sounds more like a paean to bloatware to me! How
>> many people can afford to drop a lot of money on a system capable of running
>> 64-bit Vista well? I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
>> publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
>> spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it? There's even a Micro$oft ad
>> on this very web page. What ever became of journalistic integrity? I continue to
>> feel good about my dropping out of the increasingly more tainted trade
>> journalist crowd years ago... Ben Myers"
>
>
>So did you post comments on all the articles that are totally one sided
>toward XP?
>
>There's no doubt that Vista64 isn't for everyone and I don't see
>anywhere in that article that the author says it is. He's simply saying
>that if you're going to move to Vista, do it with the 64 bit version and
>a damn powerful machine.
>
>Bob

Were you feeling recursive today Ben?

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 18:26:23 -0500, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>I guess I did do a sort of review of a review. As an old-time reviewer, it was
>easy for me to do... Ben Myers
>
>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 15:33:47 -0600, Journey <> wrote:
>
>>On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 14:14:44 -0500, Ben Myers
>><> wrote:
>>
>>> I would say that you folks at ZD should be ashamed for
>>>publishing this story with a completely positive spin. Oops! I forgot. Microsoft
>>>spends a lot of dollars with ZD on ads, doesn't it?
>>
>>Good review Ben esp. the text quoted above. They should be ashamed of
>>the spin and ashamed at the low-quality of the review. The author is
>>an idiot if he believes the benchmark shows anything positive.

On Thu, 21 Feb 2008 20:45:51 -0500, Ben Myers
<> wrote:

>I agree 100% with YOUR statement, made without hype and large piles of bull
>dung: If you're going to move to Vista, do it with the 64 bit version and a
>damn powerful machine. Right now Vista continues to be a big "if" for a lot of
>people, because of the time that needs to be spent to move from one computer to
>another, and the expenses of the basic computer hardware and the hardware to
>replace that for which there are no Vista drivers, take your pick: 32-bit or
>64-bit. Hence Vista's underwhelming success... Ben Myers

I disagree with both of you. For most people, if they're going to
move to Vista, the 32 bit version is the way to go.

Vista performance with a 2GB 32-bit PC is just fine.

There will be more driver and compatibilty problems with Vista 64.

I think rather than a blanket statement " If you're going to move to
Vista, do it with the 64 bit version and a damn powerful machine." the
kind of user needs to be taken into account.

Most people that have Vista bought a PC with it already installed. The
ones with XP, as has become fairly common knowledge, should stay where
they are.

Ben -- do you have any experience with Vista on a 32-bit PC with 2GB
of RAM? If so, did you have performance problems? Please explain.