Main Area and Open Discussion > General Software Discussion
How much trouble is a 64-bit OS right now?
CWuestefeld:
At work we briefly used Windows Server 2003 64-bit on our development systems, but quickly changed to the 32-bit version.
The primary reason was that Visual Studio is unstable on 64-bit, and this is a killer for developers. Worse, running VS.Net and SQL Server Management Studio simultaneously (which is how I spend most of my day) is guaranteed to crash within several minutes.
I also found the hidden swapping of folders confusing, especially because they managed to name things backwards. And it was confusing to have different versions of .Net installed; you'd think you made a change to the machine.config, but it didn't have the expected effect; you'd later discover that you were looking in the directory for the 32-bit version rather than the 64 one.
Darwin:
I went from Vista 32-bit to Server 2008 64-bit to Vista 64-bit and haven't looked back. Rather than getting upset about the software/shell extensions/what have you that no longer work under 64-bit, I see it as an opportunity to streamline my operation. Case in point: XP 32 bit machine has 377 applications installed while my Vista 64-bit machine has 145 installed...
I went 64-bit because I am running 4GB RAM and object to (in my case) 1GB of it not being utilized/recognised by the OS! Besides, Windows Server 2008 was free and, when I realised that a lot of my software was licenced for "Home" use but not for Servers, I ponied up $70 to get Vista Ultimate 64-bit through the Ultimate Steal...
I'm very happy with it. If I still had the 3GB of RAM that this computer came with installed, I'd probably still be on 32-bit though. I can't say I've noticed a huge difference in performance (actually, the same applies to the 3GB vs. 4GB upgrade - in everyday usage I didn't notice a difference, but dammit, I have 4GB of RAM. I repeat I HAVE 4 GB OF RAM! Yeah, I know, I'm pathetic). The big boost came when I went from a 5400rpm drive to a 7200rpm drive. Zoom, zoom, zoom!
FWIW I use Vista 64-bit pretty much "out of the box". I've left UAC alone and have moderately tweaked the services that are running, but that's about it.
f0dder:
The primary reason was that Visual Studio is unstable on 64-bit, and this is a killer for developers. Worse, running VS.Net and SQL Server Management Studio simultaneously (which is how I spend most of my day) is guaranteed to crash within several minutes.-CWuestefeld (February 04, 2009, 12:53 PM)
--- End quote ---
Weird, I run Visual Studio 2008, SQL Server 2005 Express and the SQL management tool under Vista64 without any problems :)
The SQL stuff is a recent addition and haven't been put under much load yet, but seems perfectly stable. VS2008 has run for a while. And I've used various VS versions for years under XP64 without a hiccup.
MilesAhead:
Darwin I get the same feel using this new PC. It's quad core with 8 GB ram but as far as surfing the net with Firefox or opening programs it feels pretty much the same as my dual core with 32 bit Vista. Where it shines is running a video encoder for each core. It's fun to watch Core Temp show all 4 cores maxed out with no fan noise!! It's not sports car fast, but once you get the weight movin' it doesn't slow down. :)
zajc:
I'm using 64-bit OS for almost a year and I find it very very stable with almost no problem comparing with XP (32-bit).
The first problem is I must restart Windows 2008 (64-bit of course) every 60 days :-[ because my licence expire
(I build my OS using this guide http://www.win2008workstation.com/wordpress/).
The second problem are drivers. I'm missing drivers for USB printer and USB scanner,
but I solve this by installing Ubuntu in VirtualBox and I'm scanning and printing through VM.
Navigation
[0] Message Index
[#] Next page
[*] Previous page
Go to full version