This week seems to be "Vista Week" here at MG. To continue the theme, we'll point to an article over at Dan's Data. With 64bit processors becoming more commonplace in home/home office computers, many consumers considering an upgrade to Windows Vista are tempted by the 64bit editions with the assumption of better support and faster performance. The reality is, the greater majority of the software and hardware device drivers are still living in a 32-bit world, and will likely remain that way for the foreseeable future.
Here's an excerpt from Dan's article Ask Dan: 32 or 64 bit Vista?:
... There's even less reason for normal users to get 64-bit Windows. Compatibility is even worse, it isn't (overall) any faster for 32-bit software, and unless you already know of some piece of 64-bit software that you really want to run, I can fairly confidently state that there isn't any.
If you're seriously considering a 64bit edition of Vista, consider these points:
- The gaming industry has yet to embrace the 64bit architecture.
- With very few exceptions, all home/home office applications are 32bit - including Microsoft Office.
- At the time of this writing, the vast majority of 64bit device drivers are alpha or beta quality and are not considered "production ready."
- 64bit Vista will not run 16bit applications.
- 64bit Vista will not let you install unsigned device drivers. You know that "are you sure you want to install this device" screen? Those are unsigned device drivers. 64bit Vista will not ask you, it simply won't install it regardless of how many 4-letter words you shout at it.
My own conclusion: Until there is better, more widespread, support for 64bit hardware and applications, you're better off saving your money and buying Vista 32bit instead.
