Thinkpads Forum

pae77 wrote:snipped

Wow...you had it PRE-INSTALLED and it STILL posed problems, or at least annoyances. What is the big mystery with 64-bit. If you had it pre-installed, all drivers were automatically installed along with it, right? So that, or so I think, is 75% of the battle. How does Vista x64 "behave" or "look"(?) differently from Vista x86?

Crunch wrote:Wow...you had it PRE-INSTALLED and it STILL posed problems, or at least annoyances. What is the big mystery with 64-bit. If you had it pre-installed, all drivers were automatically installed along with it, right? So that, or so I think, is 75% of the battle. How does Vista x64 "behave" or "look"(?) differently from Vista x86?

preinstallation won't fix anything.   the problems/issues/hurdles are with vista itself.

vista x64 and x86 look 100% identical.   their "behavior", per se, will depend on the individual installation.

erik wrote: preinstallation won't fix anything. the problems/issues/hurdles are with vista itself.

vista x64 and x86 look 100% identical. their "behavior", per se, will depend on the individual installation.

I see. Well, since I have not had the need to boot into XP on my dual-boot system in coming up on SIX months(!), should I be fine then? I have ZERO problems with Vista. I have EVERYTHING on. 3D, Aero glass, multiple browser, media player, external 22" display, AIM for IM'ing and VoiP calling, WiFi (vastly improved over XP), utorrent, and sometimes even the sidebar. I keep it in shape, too, with multiple registry cleaners, anti-virus, as well as anti-spyware apps.

Blue screens experienced in the last six months: 0

Considering this fact, should I even encounter more than a few hiccups with x64? I've loved Vista and haven't had any real problems since Release Candidate 2 back about one year ago, in November 2006. I was a beta tester.

Thanks...

Like Erik said, my issues so far are all with Vista. Coming from XP and experiencing Vista for the very first time, just learning my way around the file structure took some time and effort. Also, many things in Vista are quite a bit different than they were in XP. There are lots of little and some major differences. If you are the type that likes to "get under the hood," it all takes getting used to and there is a learning curve. After a week or so, I'm doing pretty well with it, I think.

Then updating everything and customizing takes time and effort. Even though it was a new T61p with the factory preload, many of the drivers and preinstalled apps still needed to be updated, as well as the OS itself. I'm not saying any of this was hard, but it took time and some effort. Particularly since System Update 3.1 does not work perfectly. So I had to manually check everything to make sure everything was properly installed and updated. Then installing, configuring, and testing all my apps and making sure they were all updated (or that I had vista versions, if available) took more time and effort.

And, there were a few apps that just won't work yet with Vista x64, for example PeerGuardian 2, to name one.

But now that I have pretty much everything installed, updated, and configured the way I want, for the time being at least, everything is good and I'm really enjoying my new T61p.

pae77 wrote:snipped

Awesome. Alright, so I mistook the issue being the new look/new feel OS, not the fact that it is 64-bit. Cool.

So how is it? 64-bit I mean? What are some of the main differences? Is it just breathtakingly fast, as some people say it is?? How much RAM do you have in it? The full 4GB?

MOD EDIT: Please, kindly, trim down your quoting. Thanks.

you can't tell vista 64 from 32 just by looking at it.   again, on the outside they look 100% identical.   it's what's underneath that's different and if you don't know what's different underneath then you'll be better off with 32.

pae77 has 4GB installed per his signature.   vista 64 needs as much memory as it can get to run its best and i honestly feel that 3GB isn't enough.

I have been using Vista 64 bit for a couple months now and I'm very pleased with it. I have 4 gb of RAM and it's fun to be able to use it all.

I have been doing school projects in Java where we have to do some hard core number crunching. Having the 64 bit OS allows me to use the 64 bit Java VM which runs my algorithms significantly faster.

It's fun to get into the 64 bit age And you can use the full 4gb of RAM, which believe it or not has been very helpful in the school project I'm working on. One of my programs occupies about 3 gigs of RAM while it's running I simply couldn't run it without Vista 64 bit, I would have to rewrite my algorithm and it would run far slower.

Just my 2 cents.

erik wrote:you can't tell vista 64 from 32 just by looking at it. again, on the outside they look 100% identical. it's what's underneath that's different and if you don't know what's different underneath then you'll be better off with 32.

pae77 has 4GB installed per his signature. vista 64 needs as much memory as it can get to run its best and i honestly feel that 3GB isn't enough.

Yes, I'm sure they LOOK identical. And I can get two 2GB RAM chips, even though I know about the T60p limit of "only" 3GB. However, isn't it true that due to whatever technical reason, I would be able to run x64 with 4GB installed, albeit that only 3GB are recognized by the system?

erik wrote:it's what's underneath that's different and if you don't know what's different underneath then you'll be better off with 32.

Now this part got my attention. You, amongst another two ultra-knowledgeable people in IT, will basically be my basis for my decision as to whether or not to go with 64-bit.

I do not know what is underneath the hood. Since I answered the embedded question in the affirmative, your opinion is that I will be "better off" with 32-bit. You may very well be right, but please hear me out on this.

I like experimenting with new operating systems. That's why I always make sure I'm a beta tester of new innovations. So two questions:

One, why do you say I would be better off with 32-bit, and two, what exactly is it that's "underneath" it.

I know what you mean by underneath. I love Vista because of the WiFi improvement. I also like the UAC, and the improved firewall. And on a more superficial basis, I love the way it looks. The 3D, the Aero glass, the "live" sidebar, the "live" mini "preview" window when moving the cursor over a tab in the taskbar. I'm having fun. But you may very well be right, that 64-bit may not be for me...yet. I don't like limitations, which the lack of certain 64-bit applications may cause. But then there's the 32-bit emulator, so I don't know if I really would face software-related applications.

Hmmm...I hope you're catching my drift. You know my whole "I have to have the 15" UXGA w/IPS obsession". That is also not a need. It is purely a want. And I would really like to play around with 64-bit.

What say you, sir? hehe...

I know you didn't ask me Crunch but I think you should go for it, you sound like the kind of person who would have fun with it. I don't have any big important reason to run Vista 64, but I like it...

One thing that's fun is installing 64 bit versions of things, for example a couple of my games have a 64 bit version executable that gets higher framerates than the 32 bit version.

I think we might see more benefits to running 64 bit in the near future as the software market catches up and people slowly start migrating over.

Crunch wrote:And I can get two 2GB RAM chips, even though I know about the T60p limit of "only" 3GB. However, isn't it true that due to whatever technical reason, I would be able to run x64 with 4GB installed, albeit that only 3GB are recognized by the system?

yes, this will work and the last 1GB will go wasted as you said.   this will not be as fast as a system with all 4GB addressable like in a T61/p.

Crunch wrote:I like experimenting with new operating systems. That's why I always make sure I'm a beta tester of new innovations. So two questions:

One, why do you say I would be better off with 32-bit, and two, what exactly is it that's "underneath" it.

then you might as well go for it.   the major hurdles to overcome will be in finding drivers to work with your peripherals and getting your software to work.

vista x64 is based off of server 2003 x64 and therefore does not contain the 16-bit compatibility component and instead the 32-bit end of it is run in a compatibility/emulation mode.   if you have any 16-bit apps then they absolutely will not run on vista 64.

vista 32, conversely, is based off of server 2003 x86 and therefore has a very solid base underneath it.   most issues people have with it are based off of 3rd-party drivers and apps.   the OS itself, in my experience, is quite good.

Hellbore wrote:I know you didn't ask me Crunch but I think you should go for it, you sound like the kind of person who would have fun with it. I don't have any big important reason to run Vista 64, but I like it...

One thing that's fun is installing 64 bit versions of things, for example a couple of my games have a 64 bit version executable that gets higher framerates than the 32 bit version.

I think we might see more benefits to running 64 bit in the near future as the software market catches up and people slowly start migrating over.

Sorry, yea, I know. I know exactly what you mean. No need, but you like it. May I ask what in particular? What is the biggest difference? I hear boot-up, show-down, and app execution times are virtually instantaneous compared to 32-bit? What else? You mentioned games. Does that mean graphics are better??? Make me salivate...

/faint LOL...

Alright, 4 out 4 people, whose opinions I respect, are now all saying the same thing. GO FOR IT, Crunch.

It was going to be 3/3, but Hellbore got it exactly right when he said

hellbore wrote:...you sound like the kind of person who would have fun with it.

Crunch personality ascertained correctly: YES LOL...

erik wrote: yes, this will work and the last 1GB will go wasted as you said. this will not be as fast as a system with all 4GB addressable like in a T61/p.

Do you think I should get one 2GB stick, to make it 3GB's, or two 2GB sticks for 4GB, albeit that one is wasted? Is there ANY benefit by going with more than 3GB?

erik wrote: then you might as well go for it. the major hurdles to overcome will be in finding drivers to work with your peripherals and getting your software to work.

vista x64 is based off of server 2003 x64 and therefore does not contain the 16-bit compatibility component and instead the 32-bit end of it is run in a compatibility/emulation mode. if you have any 16-bit apps then they absolutely will not run on vista 64.

vista 32, conversely, is based off of server 2003 x86 and therefore has a very solid base underneath it. most issues people have with it are based off of 3rd-party drivers and apps. the OS itself, in my experience, is quite good.

I have no 16-bit applications....that I know of. As my hardware is no more than one year old, I'm hopeful that the driver issue will not be problematic. As for the software, like I said, I believe I can find 64-bit equivalents of what I'm running now fairly easily. And the rest, 32-bit mode.

I agree, though, Vista 32 has been nothing but an awesome experience for me. NO BSOD's. Everything that I run is now compatible with it, and I thoroughly enjoy the eye candy.

............................ I'm ready! ................................

Crunch wrote:I hear boot-up, show-down, and app execution times are virtually instantaneous compared to 32-bit? What else? You mentioned games. Does that mean graphics are better???

virtually instantaneous?   i've never found a marked difference between 32-bit and 64-bit in terms of boot/shutdown times.   vista 64 takes almost 30 seconds to shutdown my T61p where XP only takes 10.   app execution speed has more to to with system memory installed than the bit architecture.   vista 32 and 64 are both painfully slow with only 1GB installed where both are quite fast with 4+GB.   vista 64 can be faster than 32 but everything depends on what you're doing.

graphics will be identical between 32 and 64.   the OS has little control over your graphical experience.   that's controlled by the GPU, drivers, and individual applications.

i suggest reading the following article for more detailed information just so you know what you're up against:
http://www.evaluationengineering.com/ar ... 7imact.asp

Crunch wrote:Do you think I should get one 2GB stick, to make it 3GB's, or two 2GB sticks for 4GB, albeit that one is wasted? Is there ANY benefit by going with more than 3GB?

you'll never, ever notice the difference between having 3GB or 4GB installed on your T60p.   if you can then you're a robot with superhuman abilities.   having two matched 2GB modules installed will put the system in dual-channel mode but the difference is only 5~8% in memory-intensive applications like matlab.   so, the official answer is that it doesn't matter.

erik wrote:virtually instantaneous? i've never found a marked difference between 32-bit and 64-bit in terms of boot/shutdown times. vista 64 takes almost 30 seconds to shutdown my T61p where XP only takes 10. app execution speed has more to to with system memory installed than the bit architecture. vista 32 and 64 are both painfully slow with only 1GB installed where both are quite fast with 4+GB. vista 64 can be faster than 32 but everything depends on what you're doing.

graphics will be identical between 32 and 64. the OS has little control over your graphical experience. that's controlled by the GPU, drivers, and individual applications.

i suggest reading the following article for more detailed information just so you know what you're up against:
http://www.evaluationengineering.com/ar ... 7imact.asp

Thanks erik. That's a excellent find. Most misconceptions in the article I am guilty of. There is even one point where the author suggests the possibility of the 64-bit version being slightly slower, albeit it's highly unlikely.

However, at this point, I remain undeterred. I will have to start using Vista 32 to begin with anyway, until my T7600 arrives. Per your advice, I will upgrade all systems to 3GB, instead of 4GB.

I frequently check my RAM usage with the 2GB installed, and even when I have a lot open, the highest RAM usage I've seen was 53%. Is there a possibility that the additional 3rd GB might increase the performance somewhat in some way, even with 32-bit? It doesn't sound logical...Hmm....

I would love to get a T61p, but with no more IPS screens, no T61's for me. There was someone here who managed to install a 15" UXGA IPS 4:3 into a T61p's 14.1" chassis, wasn't there? I wonder how that all went. Now THAT sounds crazy. Meaning right up my alley.

vista needs as much memory as it can get.   most of the reason why vista 64 runs faster than 32 on a T61/X61 is because 64 can use 4GB and 32 can only use 3GB.   that last 1GB can make a lot of difference since vista will use up to 2GB for the OS alone, leaving only 1~2GB for applications.   since you're stuck with 3GB no matter what you do, i'll actually be quite surprised if vista 64 runs any faster than 32 on your T60p.

erik wrote: . . .since vista will use up to 2GB for the OS alone, leaving only 1~2GB for applications. . . .

That's certainly been my experience with vx64 so far. Memory usage seem to hover around 1.9 Gb most of the time.

same here.   upon boot vista will have already used around 1.25~1.4GB.   looking at my meter with large documents open in illustrator CS3 and photoshop CS3 i have less than 750MB free.   this is exactly why i think vista x64 needs at least 4GB to run optimally.

erik wrote:same here. upon boot vista will have already used around 1.25~1.4GB. looking at my meter with large documents open in illustrator CS3 and photoshop CS3 i have less than 750MB free. this is exactly why i think vista x64 needs at least 4GB to run optimally.

Wow...I see. Well, am I correct in interpreting that 64-bit mostly benefits users who run graphic-intensive apps? I am asking because I don't do any of that. I'm in sales and consulting. I use Office 2007, Firefox (with about 20 tabs open), IE7 (occasionally), a torrent client, AIM for VoiP and chats/texts, a virus/spyware scanner runs in the background of course, VLAN player for watching TV and movies, Diskeeper 2008 running auto-defragmentation in the background, PDANet for Windows Mobile (tiny app for tethering to my Treo 750), and the WDMC for sync'ing my Treo 750.

That's it. No Adobe stuff. No AutoCAD. No games, although I am thinking of getting into games again at some point, as they have become so sophisticated.

Do I really need more than 3GB for that?

Most of the apps mentioned above I don't usually run simultaneously. Here is what I have running at the same time almost all of the time. Firefox w/15-20 tabs open, AIM6.5, VLAN player, and the anti-virus/spyware as well as Diskeeper are always running in the background for the reasons stated. Hmmm...?

Crunch wrote:Well, am I correct in interpreting that 64-bit mostly benefits users who run graphic-intensive apps? I am asking because I don't do any of that. ... Do I really need more than 3GB for that?

heck, under XP 1GB is all you would need for what you do.   vista, however, needs more just to run the OS itself so 2GB is the bare minimum i'd recommend for it.   given your uses, you probably won't notice any difference whatsoever between vista 32 and 64.   it's tough to say.

the only 64-bit app i use is autocad 2008 and it's only slightly faster than autocad 2007 was under server 2003.

Not sure if this has already been posted as quit frankly I don't care to read through the previous info, but you do know you'll need TWO Vista Ultimate licenses to have both a Vista 32bit & 64bit install on your system. When you active an Ultimate install, it essentially locks in what your system is running to that product key (32bit or 64bit).
Granted, you can change this at a later time. However, Vista frequently checks to make sure your system hardware profile matches what was activated. Thus you'll run into major problems trying to go back & forth between both OS's.

Just a heads up for ya, as when Vista sees that you've got an invalid key, it locks you out of the system and the only way to get back in is by purchasing the right key for your system. You might get a three-day window to resolve the issue, but I wouldn't count on it...

JHaislet wrote:Not sure if this has already been posted as quit frankly I don't care to read through the previous info, but you do know you'll need TWO Vista Ultimate licenses to have both a Vista 32bit & 64bit install on your system. When you active an Ultimate install, it essentially locks in what your system is running to that product key (32bit or 64bit).
Granted, you can change this at a later time. However, Vista frequently checks to make sure your system hardware profile matches what was activated. Thus you'll run into major problems trying to go back & forth between both OS's.

Just a heads up for ya, as when Vista sees that you've got an invalid key, it locks you out of the system and the only way to get back in is by purchasing the right key for your system. You might get a three-day window to resolve the issue, but I wouldn't count on it...

Yes, I know that. I have two valid keys.

erik wrote:

Crunch wrote:Well, am I correct in interpreting that 64-bit mostly benefits users who run graphic-intensive apps? I am asking because I don't do any of that. ... Do I really need more than 3GB for that?

heck, under XP 1GB is all you would need for what you do. vista, however, needs more just to run the OS itself so 2GB is the bare minimum i'd recommend for it. given your uses, you probably won't notice any difference whatsoever between vista 32 and 64. it's tough to say.

the only 64-bit app i use is autocad 2008 and it's only slightly faster than autocad 2007 was under server 2003.

Vista's bare minimum 2GB? For 32-bit? I would say 1GB is, as I've never been able to use more than 53%. So for me, 1.5GB would be plenty. But 2GB is nice to have for possible expansion at a later point. You must run a lot of graphics apps...

Crunch wrote:Vista's bare minimum 2GB? For 32-bit? I would say 1GB is, as I've never been able to use more than 53%. So for me, 1.5GB would be plenty. But 2GB is nice to have for possible expansion at a later point. You must run a lot of graphics apps...

2GB is the bare minimum that i would recommend, not microsoft.   it's painfully slow with only 1GB installed, whether you need it all or not.

i do run a lot of graphics apps and on average 70~80% of my 4GB system memory is in use every day.   94% is the highest i've made it so far.   i'll be glad when i can install 8GB total.

And with memory so reasonably priced lately, there is no reason not to max out the capacity of your machine!

pae77 wrote:And with memory so reasonably priced lately, there is no reason not to max out the capacity of your machine!

Oh yeah... I learned long ago that the secret to computer happines is maxing out your RAM