Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

  • Thread starter Thread starter David
  • Start date Start date
D

David

Guest
I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as I
could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.

One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:

The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit only);
Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and 64-bit).

http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/

I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.

TIA
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
BIOS update would probably fix it.

Tony. . .


"David" <dfumento@ATTHISADDRESSgmailDOT.com> wrote in message
news:6E0F1E12-48BC-4A7A-B35A-F4AFE23D1948@microsoft.com...
> I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
> I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
>
> One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
>
> The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
> only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
> 64-bit).
>
> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
>
> I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
>
> TIA
>
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

I have an IBM/Lenovo laptop and people in the forum.thinkpads.com claim that
when they install 4 GB under Vista 32 they only see 3 GB. Could please give
me a link that 32 bit OS supports 4GB, minus a fraction?

Also, Cisco VPN new AnyConnect Software does work in 64 bit I found out.
Thanks...

"Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
news:%23vdKSo9KIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
>BIOS update would probably fix it.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "David" <dfumento@ATTHISADDRESSgmailDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:6E0F1E12-48BC-4A7A-B35A-F4AFE23D1948@microsoft.com...
>> I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
>> I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
>>
>> One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
>>
>> The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
>> only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
>> 64-bit).
>>
>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
>>
>> I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
>>
>> TIA
>>
>
>
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

Well, a bit more than a small fraction - 3 GB is a good estimate, but it
will vary depending on the specifics of the hardware you're running. A
couple of 512 MB Video cards and you'll see a good deal less than 3 GB.

If the Cisco works, and you don't have any other issues, go for 64bit. But
keep in mind that drivers are still taking a while to get into the
marketplace, and older hardware may never see 64bit drivers. So do your due
diligence.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"David" <dfumento@ATTHISADDRESSgmailDOT.com> wrote in message
news:97A92C87-4BF1-4B02-8103-48B1EB5D59B2@microsoft.com...
>I have an IBM/Lenovo laptop and people in the forum.thinkpads.com claim
>that when they install 4 GB under Vista 32 they only see 3 GB. Could
>please give me a link that 32 bit OS supports 4GB, minus a fraction?
>
> Also, Cisco VPN new AnyConnect Software does work in 64 bit I found out.
> Thanks...
>
> "Tony Sperling" <tony.sperling@dbREMOVEmail.dk> wrote in message
> news:%23vdKSo9KIHA.484@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
>>BIOS update would probably fix it.
>>
>> Tony. . .
>>
>>
>> "David" <dfumento@ATTHISADDRESSgmailDOT.com> wrote in message
>> news:6E0F1E12-48BC-4A7A-B35A-F4AFE23D1948@microsoft.com...
>>> I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64
>>> as I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
>>>
>>> One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
>>>
>>> The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
>>> only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
>>> 64-bit).
>>>
>>> http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
>>>
>>> I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
>>>
>>> TIA
>>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

With 32-bit Vista or Windows XP SP2 the lost "fraction" will be almost
25%. The operating system will not access more than 3.12GB of RAM,
depending on the hardware in the machine the op may see or be able to
use even less than that. No amount of fiddling with the hardware or
BIOS updates will change that. If the op absolutely wants or needs to
use a Windows 32-bit operating system and still keep usage of the full
4GB of installed RAM he will have to use one of the Windows Server products.

John

Tony Sperling wrote:
> A 32bit OS will also support up to 4GB, minus a fraction. If yours don't a
> BIOS update would probably fix it.
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
> "David" <dfumento@ATTHISADDRESSgmailDOT.com> wrote in message
> news:6E0F1E12-48BC-4A7A-B35A-F4AFE23D1948@microsoft.com...
>
>>I'm ordering a new laptop and am strongly thinking of getting Vista 64 as
>>I could use the entire 4 GB RAM space.
>>
>>One reason I can think of is that the Cisco VPN only runs Vista 32:
>>
>>The Cisco VPN client supports Windows 2000, XP and Vista (x86/32-bit
>>only); Linux (Intel); Mac OS X 10.4; and Solaris UltraSparc (32 and
>>64-bit).
>>
>>http://www.cisco.com/en/US/products/sw/secursw/ps2308/
>>
>>I called and they seem to not even have anything in beta.
>>
>>TIA
>>
>
>
>
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

It seems, I'm over-ruled on this one - I was under the impression that you
should be able to squeeze a bit more than 3,6 out of it. Ah, well, we learn
every day.


Tony. . .
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the machine
you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit Vista (and I
beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to 3.12GB "to avoid
potential driver compatibility issues".

The system memory that is reported in the System Information dialog box
in Windows Vista is less than you expect if 4 GB of RAM is installed
http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/

John

Tony Sperling wrote:

> It seems, I'm over-ruled on this one - I was under the impression that you
> should be able to squeeze a bit more than 3,6 out of it. Ah, well, we learn
> every day.
>
>
> Tony. . .
>
>
>
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
> machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
> Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
> 3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".

Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista reports
the full 4GB.

I believe it depends on the BIOS, motherboard, CPU, video card and who
knows what else.

The only thing I do know for sure is that people who run Vista 32 all
seem to report different amounts of RAM which are always less than the
actual amount installed while those with Vista 64 all seem to report
the actual amount installed.




--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

XS11E wrote:

> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>
>
>>It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
>>machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
>>Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
>>3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".
>
>
> Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista reports
> the full 4GB.

In that case the information in http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/
is incorrect, Microsoft should review and correct the article.

John
 
Re: Any good reasons not to run Vista 64?

John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:

> XS11E wrote:
>
>> John John <audetweld@nbnet.nb.ca> wrote:
>>
>>
>>>It used to be that depending on the hardware installed in the
>>>machine you might be able to see or use that much but with 32-bit
>>>Vista (and I beleive 32-bit XP SP2) Microsoft has trottled it to
>>>3.12GB "to avoid potential driver compatibility issues".
>>
>>
>> Can't be 3.12GB, my 32-bit Vista reports 3.5GB, 62-bit Vista
>> reports the full 4GB.
>
> In that case the information in
> http://support.microsoft.com/kb/929605/ is incorrect, Microsoft
> should review and correct the article.

That's correct, the information is incorrect.





--
XS11E, Killing all posts from Google Groups
The Usenet Improvement Project:
http://improve-usenet.org
 
Back
Top