Software

[Krypto]

wiiman64, Telus actually has Telus Security Service (although according to their website, it hasn't yet been upgraded to 64-bit compatibility). 

Brechan, if Shaw Secure is now 64-bit compatible, that's because they just recently upgraded their security software.  When I checked for various reasons back in March, Shaw Secure was still only 32-bit compatible.

Message Edited by Krypto on 07-02-2009 11:25 PM

[wiiman64]

---

Brechan wrote:

---

So it depends on your ISP. I have Telus, and there's no internet security included, so I just don't have internet security

---

Try using this anti-virus software from download.com ; it's free, works with Vista, and many of my friends use it for their computers

http://download.cnet.com/AVG-Anti-Virus-Free-Edition/3000-2239_4-10320142.html?tag=mncol

Another thing to consider when wanting to upgrade to Windows Vista 64, is whether you want to pay for a 'boxed' retail version of Vista, or an OEM (buliders version) of Windows Vista

Retail Version: Windows Vista Home Premium

http://www.futureshop.ca/catalog/proddetail.asp?logon=&langid=EN&dm=DEBUG&sku_id=0665000FS10100052&c... $249.99

Sorry, the program wouldn't allow for the above address to show as a link, so you'll just have to do the old 'copy and paste' thing.

Message Edited by Brechan on 07-02-2009 12:24 AM

Message Edited by Julez on 07-02-2009 09:09 AM

---

Yeah, I tried AVG and I got some kind of Trojan anyway that I ended up having to clean out myself. Plus it took forever to scan the computer.

---

 Krypto wrote:

wiiman64, Telus actually has Telus Security Service (although according to their website, it hasn't yet been upgraded to 64-bit compatibility). 

Brechan, if Shaw Secure is now 64-bit compatible, that's because they just recently upgraded their security software.  When I checked for various reasons back in March, Shaw Secure was still only 32-bit compatible.

Message Edited by Krypto on 07-02-2009 11:25 PM

---

Their idea of security software is a little application that does absoultely nothing except tell you your computer is secure, unfortunately. I saw how much of a fail it was on my buddys PC so I didn't even bother. I did have Norton for a while, but back in the day it hogged system resources like it thought it was Windows or something.

[Brechan]

Well; I see that the moderators took offence to my trying to put up a link to a competitors site (for OEM copy of Windows Vista 64-bit) and removed the link...yes Krypto you're probably right that SHAW Secure is a lame-ass software program, but I always have Malwarebyte's Anti-Malware handy (you never know what you can pick up from the internet) just in case.

 I still believe there's some decent anti-virus programs out there that are free (and aren't the resource hogs like Norton). And maybe SHAW Secure is still 32-bit, but as Vista is backward-compatable, I probably just didn't notice...either way, I've been running 64-bit Vista for over a year (with a 10,000 rpm drive) and never had a problem installing and/ or running the program.

The best site I have found for downloading (just about) any program for Vista is:

http://download.cnet.com/windows/

[Julez]

Hi Brechan, please check your private messages (upper left corner, enveloppe icon) for the reason why your post was edited.

We do not take offense, we just make sure guidelines are respected.

Cheers,

[Robby_J]

64bit rocks. If you're doing CPU intensive computing, 64bit does the job faster without the need to write to your harddrive. It does all the work in your RAM and CPU.

It's nice to see that most Windows 3rd party developers writing software for both 32 and 64 bit. It was lack of 3rd party support which made XP 64bit bomb.

Apple has got over this problem by making Leopard OS 64bit but still able to run 32bit apps at the same time so as to not confuse customers with different versions of the same OS.

If you do a youtube search for Leopard 64bit. There's a great Steve Jobbs demo where you can see a 32 and 64 bit app running side by side. Whether you run Windows or Mac. It nicely illustrates the benefits of 64bit.

[mtrump]

---

64bit rocks. If you're doing CPU intensive computing, 64bit does the job faster without the need to write to your harddrive. It does all the work in your RAM and CPU.

---

This statement is inaccurate.  64-bit does not perform the job faster.  What it does is that it allows the CPU having a larger virtual and physical address spaces. Server applications are where memory address space can really take the advantage of [eg. Exchange, SQL Server]. 

This is the reason why server environment adopted 64-bit much earlier than desktop end.  Exchange Server 2005 was 64-bit only from day 1.  Windows Server 2008 R2 that will be released in October (same date as Win7) comes only in 64-bit only.   Virtually all Micrsoft server products will be 64-bit only from now on (eg. Sharepoint, SQL Server)

---

It was lack of 3rd party support which made XP 64bit bomb.

---

It was lack of drivers that was the main issue with XP x64.  Back then the OEMs weren't quite ready to produce 64-bit drivers for their components.  Nowadays the issue is pretty much subsided, as these OEMs are now producing 64-bit drivers for Vista (actually Microsoft forced them to under the Vista HCL program; with they won't give certification for Vista unless they produce both 32-bit and 64-bit drivers.)   

If the PC has all proper drivers, XP x64 was actually a very capable OS (I ran a box with XP x64 for quite awhile before switching to Vista.)  On the other hand Vista came out shortly after with official x64 support, so naturally XP x64 was forgotten. 

---

Apple has got over this problem by making Leopard OS 64bit but still able to run 32bit apps at the same time so as to not confuse customers with different versions of the same OS.

---

1.  Apple supply both hardware and software, and the keep a tight control over that. 

2.  Apple pretty much have a "my-way-or-the-highway" attitude toward others; your software needs work with my OS - I won't modify my OS so that your software will run as is.

3.  When Apple release MacOS X on the Intel platform, Intel was well into its migration to x64.  Therefore Apple have not produced that many 32-bit only Intel Macs to cause as big of an impact.  If Apple went with Intel five years earlier, they'll have a much bigger headache.

4.  Snow Leopard is Intel x64 only.  All those with PowerPC and 32-bit only Intel Macs have no paths to upgrade and are stuck on Leopard forever and ever.  Yet Apple customers never seem to complain about this; they'll be more than happy to ditch their existing systems and buy new ones.  

HP, Dell, etc. can very well supply only x64 software with their PC; however, they have to prepare to have staff increase in their technical support departments over certain incompatible software.  Dell's subsidiary that sells high-end gaming PCs and laptops, have virtually migrated their platforms to x64 because their target customers are ready for it.

[Robby_J]

check out http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=id5vpy2CapY

a demo of 64bit app running faster than 32. The green dots represent the CPU usage and the red dots represent the Disk activity. Notice how the 64 bit version cleans up the 4GB photo faster and without writing to disk.

Cheerio,

Rob 

[bob_saget]

I have had 0 serious problems with vista 64 ultimate and service pack 2.

Except for the "crash" when you exit CS. Other than that, no problems at all. 

[mtrump]

I have watched the demo and I found that there are some issues.

1. It is a demo specially created by Steve Jobs and his gang.  It is not based on real programs that most consumers will run.
2. Jobs, during the demo, never mentioned what "application" that he is running.  I know for certain - it is not Photoshop.  In fact Photoshop CS4 64-bit version only exist in Windows.  (Adobe is planning 64-bit CS5 for MAC.)
3. A 4GB graphics file is not a typical-sized file that majority of people that will be working on daily (at least not a typical FS customer)
4. Both programs are running simultaneously on the same computer.  How do I know both programs received the same attention regarding CPU time and disk access?  A slightly fairer comparision would be 2 computers totally equal in hardware and software (except the app) with 2 projectors showing the display side-by-side, one running the 64-bit app and one running 32-bit.
5. A blog from an Adobe engineer  is much more "modest" compared to what Jobs was trying to convey in the demo:  "A 64-bit application doesn't have same that limit on its address space, since pointers are 64 bits - they can address a much larger amount of memory.  That's pretty much it.  64-bit applications don't magically get faster access to memory, or any of the other key things that would help most applications perform better... Combine the performance penalty for the data structure size increase with the lack of any sort of other performance win, and the number of situations in which an application being 64-bit are a performance win is very small."  Who would I trust - the Adobe engineer who knows his stuff around the code, or Jobs who is a CEO that simply wants to boost the share prices of his company?

[CJBear1997]

First off, my apologies for my extended absence, I hate when this trivial thing called life interferes with more serious issues such as computers. Secondly, when I started this thread, it was meant to simply be informative and hopefully helpful to those considering making the big upgrade. Since posting this original message, I have gained some experience running the 64bit version, so I felt it was time for an update.

1. Even though it is the 64bit version, it will still install and run 32bit app's, wether it's photo editing, microsoft office, even games.

2. Wether running 32bit, or 64bit windows, the basics still apply, a good processor, suitable amount of ram, decent graphics card, and hard drive size and speed still are the major factors that determine a computer's performance.

3. I am still having no issues running the 64bit Vista Ultimate, regardless of how much photo and video editing I have been doing, and the multi tasking is still seamless.

4. Having run both the 32 bit and 64 bit os's, the biggest difference I can attest to is the ability to add more than 4 GB's of ram, which is useful when working with larger files, even though that isn't something I do on a daily basis, the freedom to do it whenever I desire has made the upgrade worthwhile to me.

I hope this is helpful to anyone considering upgrading.

CJ.