Forum Archive Home -> Media Center PC / HTPC -> Vista Home Premium x64 (64-Bit) vs x86 (32-Bit)

Vista Home Premium x64 (64-Bit) vs x86 (32-Bit)

Shibblet posted 2008 Sep 29 15:39

I know that this is going to spark some arguments. I dropped Vista x64 last night and loaded up Vista x86 instead. All of a sudden, my drivers start working, no more issues with audio codecs not functioning, and Xvid works in VMC now. Lame ACM can be installed. I can use AviSynth! My advice for anyone who wants to use Windows Media Center, and doesn't like toying with trying to make certain codecs and drivers function. i.e. 12 hours later, you "think" you made FFDShow work... Switch back to Vista x86!

rallynavvie posted 2008 Sep 30 07:18

It's because there aren't many native 64-bit video codecs. I found out that when running Media Center from any 64-bit version of Vista that there is a 64-bit version of Media Center itself which really only has a compatible driver for MPEG2 and WMV (that I know of). Apparently the 32-bit version of Media Center is also still installed so you could just shortcut to that one instead and use existing 32-bit drivers. I haven't had any synch issues on my 64-bit version of Media Center. Personally I don't believe anyone should be installing a 64-bit OS unless they need it for something. So many people are installing it just because it sounds cool and then complain when it doesn't work. I need it in order to drive 8-16GB of memory for VMs. I started with Vista 32 when I only ran 4GB since I could run 64-bit guests without a 64-bit host.

jman98 posted 2008 Sep 30 09:49

My brother has Vista x64 with Windows Media Center preloaded on a Dell PC. He had a problem a few weeks ago where the PC became unusable and we were able to track to something that Windows Update automatically installed. Nice. I had to boot from his install DVD and we had to restore Vista to the day before the update. Needless to say the first thing we did is turn Windows Update off. I would strongly recommend doing so to other Vista x64 users. In fact I won't run Windows Update automatically on any Windows PC I have, but that's just me. Note that some people have found ways to make Lame ACM and similar programs work in 64 bit Vista. We had some posts about it a couple of weeks ago in one of the forums here, but I don't remember the details as I do not run 64 bit Windows at home.

Shibblet posted 2008 Sep 30 13:14

rallynavvie : Personally I don't believe anyone should be installing a 64-bit OS unless they need it for something. So many people are installing it just because it sounds cool and then complain when it doesn't work. I need it in order to drive 8-16GB of memory for VMs. I started with Vista 32 when I only ran 4GB since I could run 64-bit guests without a 64-bit host. Amen Brother!

SCDVD posted 2008 Sep 30 13:27

There is a way to have your cake and eat it too. Install a dual boot installation of both 32-bit and 64-bit versions of Vista or XP. The problem when something new comes along with Operating Systems is that the transition is never smooth if it's a big change. One of the problems with a 64-bit OS is the lack of 64-bit drivers. But if you have some tasks that benefit from a 64-bit OS, you can boot to it when you wish otherwise, boot to the 32-bit version.

Shibblet posted 2008 Sep 30 16:09

I think dual booting defeats the purpose, especially if you are going to dual-boot the same OS... Dual-booting Linux or OSX Leopard, with Vista makes more sense than booting Vista x86 and x64. Can anyone actually tell me a benefit of Vista or XP x64?

SCDVD posted 2008 Sep 30 16:25

My point is much broader than a discussion about the merits or problems of one OS versus another. My point is if for any reason someone needs to use more than one OS, dual booting is a good way to deal with the issue. But to answer your question, one benefit of a 64-bit OS is that the amount of available memory is not limited with a 64-bit OS. So, if an application benefits from more memory, a 64-bit OS would be useful. The pro or con fan-boy or the recreational debater about the merits / problems of one OS versus another is not of interest to me. My point is if anyone is stuck with the problem of OS compatibility across a range of applications, dual boot is one way to deal with it.

rallynavvie posted 2008 Sep 30 17:21

SCDVD : My point is if anyone is stuck with the problem of OS compatibility across a range of applications, dual boot is one way to deal with it. Or www.vmware.com :wink:

SCDVD posted 2008 Sep 30 17:42

rallynavvie : SCDVD : My point is if anyone is stuck with the problem of OS compatibility across a range of applications, dual boot is one way to deal with it. Or www.vmware.com :wink: That's a good one when you have to use an OS that isn't compatible with the boot sector. Virtualization can cause strange problems in some cases but can be very useful when it doesn't.

Login/Register to our forum to be able to post here.