So 32bit or 64bit version of Vista Premium?

ixwood

I'd say... Linux.

Conor_3

Only if your time is worthless. And yes, I do/have used Linux. I even install it on customers/friends computers but for the average Joe, it's just a bit too user unfriendly. It's an enthusiasts OS and needs the time dedicated to it to learn it whereas Windows aims to be point and click and away you go.

ixwood

Ha ha guess my time must be worthless then. And there was me thinking paying for an expensive, bug ridden, hacker honeypot, was a waste of money and therefore time.

FWIW, I've recently started using debian Linux and it's brill. All installed and worked 1st time no probs. Gnome is as easy to use as windows IMO. Still can;t belive how good it's been really. All for free.

And I don't have to worry about spy/ad/crap ware anymore!!

Conor_3

If it does what you want, good for you. For Average Joe wanting a computer that'll do e-mail, web, word processing and spreadsheets, there's nothing wrong with Linux. It's when you want to start doing other things when it starts to get a bit sticky such as installing something. Hardware tends to be a fun one - even USB stuff. With Windows, you run the installer that came on the CD with it and plug in your USB thing. With Linux, you plug it in and hope it works. If it doesn't, you're then in Google, web forum and Command Line hell. OK for an enthusiast. Not OK for Average Joe who just wants to know why his USB ADSL Modem won't work without some serious cocking around - usually requiring internet access which he hasn't got cos his modem doesn't work - which you don't have to do with Windows.

In fact I think there is one true test that decides it once and for all - whether you can install any software or any hardware purely with the media it comes with/what the OS natively supports, without the need to use an internet connection to download something.

Say what you like, Windows' ease of use is responsible for the widespread use of the PC today.

GoofyGAT

Another vote for 32-bit Vista here, solely for 'troublefree' computing if nothing else. 64-bit may run absolutely fine (as many on other forums claim), including all your 32-bit applications, hardware, etc - but there's always a 'but'!

This may help make up your mind (from here):

The decision to use the 64-bit version of Vista should be based on need.

The truth of the matter is that the upper 4GB memory limit of 32-bit hardware was seldom required by anything other than network servers, and almost never needed by regular PC users.

If you have a special application or operational requirement that mandates the use of the 64-bit version of Vista, sure go ahead. Just be sure to research and resolve potential conflicts and problems first.

Conor, the article you linked to in post #11 is a bit dated, so may not be entirely relevant today - only an observation. G

P.S. With all due respect guys, can you please cut out the Linux chatter - the OP is only interested to know about 32 vs 64-bit Vista. I'm sure a certain TerryTibbs would love to hear from you though at Windows or linux?

watermoss

32Bit - better supprt, better drivers! You can't use unsigned drivers easily in 64bit - need to press F8 on every bootup!

wolfman

ixwood wrote: »

FWIW, I've recently started using debian Linux and it's brill. All installed and worked 1st time no probs. Gnome is as easy to use as windows IMO. Still can;t belive how good it's been really. All for free.

Not necessarily free. It would depend how you value your time, as Linux always takes time.

Conor_3

watermoss wrote: »

32Bit - better supprt, better drivers! You can't use unsigned drivers easily in 64bit - need to press F8 on every bootup!

Well you can disable the driver signing check but then you've switched off one of the security features.