Vista 64

Matrix Games Forums

Forums Register Login Photo Gallery Member List Search Calendars FAQ

My Profile Inbox Address Book My Subscription My Forums Log Out

Vista 64

View related threads: (in this forum | in all forums)

Logged in as: Guest

Users viewing this topic: none

Printable Version

All Forums >> [Current Games From Matrix.] >> [World War II] >> War In The Pacific - Struggle Against Japan 1941 - 1945 >> Vista 64

Page: [1]

Message

<< Older Topic Newer Topic >>

Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 5:59:26 PM

mc3744

Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

In case you didn't know

I just installed WitP on Vista Home Premium 64 bit.
I've tried only a couple of turns so far (1.80 patch) and it seems to work fine.
Actually the initial loading time is MUCH faster than on XP.

I'll let you guys know in the next days if it remains stable.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

Post #: 1

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 6:30:06 PM

wild_Willie2

Posts: 2934
Joined: 10/8/2004
From: Arnhem (holland) yes a bridge to far...
Status: offline

Thanks, was just today wondering IF WITP would work on my 64 bit processor after I installed VISTA 64bit......

_____________________________

In vinum illic est sapientia , in matera illic est vires , in aqua illic es bacteria.

In wine there is wisdom, in beer there is strength, in water there are bacteria.

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 2

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 8:06:16 PM

Akos Gergely

Posts: 733
Joined: 4/8/2004
From: Hungary, Bp.
Status: offline

I assume you use a 64 bit compatible CPU for this. May I ask which one?

_____________________________

My blog: https://warshipprojects.com/

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 3

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 8:30:26 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

For time being it is still absolutely not needed to transfer to either 64-bit Windows XP nor 64-bit Windows Vista!

Same goes for transfer to 32-bit Windows Vista (or least until it matures to post 1st Service Pack) - Windows XP is still #1 and best OS there is (and fastest one)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Akos Gergely)

Post #: 4

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 9:05:29 PM

sprior

Posts: 8596
Joined: 6/18/2002
From: Portsmouth, UK
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: csatahajos

I assume you use a 64 bit compatible CPU for this. May I ask which one?

Will it work on my Commodore 64?

_____________________________

"Grown ups are what's left when skool is finished."
"History started badly and hav been geting steadily worse."
- Nigel Molesworth.

(in reply to Akos Gergely)

Post #: 5

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 9:29:30 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

Using Vista on my new Computer since February - no problems with gaming WITP.
The only thing about Vista are the build in securities - you ca have problems to find your save files via the explorer....but that happens only if you install the game into a "wrong" folder...

quote:

Actually the initial loading time is MUCH faster than on XP.

isn�t that because of the newer computer and the 4 GB RAM

_____________________________

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 6

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 10:19:36 PM

Mynok

Posts: 12108
Joined: 11/30/2002
Status: offline

Vista also has the DRM crap built-in. You may find out your rip'd CDs and videos will not play anymore...magic!

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 7

RE: Vista 64 - 6/7/2007 11:05:51 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

Vista also has the DRM crap built-in. You may find out your rip'd CDs and videos will not play anymore...magic!

there are ways around that

_____________________________

(in reply to Mynok)

Post #: 8

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 12:32:32 AM

Knavey

Posts: 3052
Joined: 9/12/2002
From: Valrico, Florida
Status: offline

4 Gigs of RAM does speed things up...Mine is lightning fast now.

_____________________________

x-Nuc twidget
CVN-71
USN 87-93
"Going slow in the fast direction"

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 9

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 1:31:54 AM

mc3744

Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

I'm using an AMD Athlon 64X2 3800+
4 GB Ram. ATI Radeon 1950.

I was using the very same computer with XP.

My - very limited - experience so far is that loading times (boot and shut down too) are much faster (on the same PC).

Finding drivers through the OS is much more efficient (it actually works!

)

I still have to try Office 2007 on Vista 64. On XP (VAIO with Duo CPU) it works slower than Office 2003. Nice features but longer times to load, to open documents AND to switch between open documents.

The built in RSS feeder in outlook is pretty nice.

I'll install AB maps and plane art during the weekend and will test it more seriously.

I knew it worked with Vista 32, but I was a bit scared about 64.
They all told me XP 64 was terrible. Not comparable with XP 32.

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 10

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 9:56:45 AM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

Guys, please listen, the 64-bit OS (wheather Windows XP 64-bit or Windows Vista 64-bit) is not good choice for 99.9999999999% of users!

Why?

Because it is simply not needed.

The 64-bit OS only runs 64-bit applications in "native" mode - the older 32-bit applications (that we all use now) are not run "natively" and, thus, they inheritly run slower (and with possibility of all problems that arise with such "emulated" run).

Also there is a problem with availability of 64-bit drivers for 64 OS.

Therefore, except for some very specialized users who apsolutely have to run apps with huge amounts or memory and that are 64-bit, the 64-bit OS is apsolutely not necessary at all...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to mc3744)

Post #: 11

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 1:53:11 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

Apollo,

as soon as you get yourself a new PC/Laptop with a pre-installed VISTA you probably wont change the system...alone the searching for all the drivers (that often wont cooperate with the new hardware...)
but before I go back to XP I go to Linux ( which I also have on my PC ) - but for gaming newer games VISTA is just fine.

Werner

PS:
Viribus - the ONE day Croation battleship

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 12

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 1:56:27 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: swift

Apollo,

as soon as you get yourself a new PC/Laptop with a pre-installed VISTA you probably wont change the system...alone the searching for all the drivers (that often wont cooperate with the new hardware...)
but before I go back to XP I go to Linux ( which I also have on my PC ) - but for gaming newer games VISTA is just fine.

Werner

The pre-installed versions are 32-bit Windows Vista - I never heard of any company that selles pre-installed machines with 64-bit Windows Vista...

quote:

PS:
Viribus - the ONE day Croation battleship

I think it was more than one day...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to wernerpruckner)

Post #: 13

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 2:10:54 PM

wernerpruckner

Posts: 4148
Joined: 5/5/2005
Status: offline

quote:

The pre-installed versions are 32-bit Windows Vista - I never heard of any company that selles pre-installed machines with 64-bit Windows Vista...

only if you ask them to do so....I use my PC at home and my Laptop also for working stuff...for me VISTA was huge step in the right direction ( besides the DRM stuff )

quote:

I think it was more than one day...

officially one day....on the 31st October Kaiser Karl I. consigned the die k.u.k. Navy to the new South-Slavian National Assembly in the hope that there would be new federation under the Habsburg flag ( with most of the ex k.u.K Monarchy )

IRL 30th October - Vizeadmiral Nikolaus von Horthy was leaving the ship with the k.uk.Flag

http://www.viribusunitis.ca/

_____________________________

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 14

RE: Vista 64 - 6/8/2007 2:41:03 PM

mc3744

Posts: 1957
Joined: 3/9/2004
From: Italy
Status: offline

Apollo,

I believe you are right.
But since I have a 64 CPU and the programs I mainly use are MS Office applications (and WitP). I thought it made sense to use an OS optimized for my CPU.

If I'll find big problems I'll go to Vista 32. Right now I can't say yet.
But I like Vista (regardless of the bit number).

_____________________________

Nec recisa recedit

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 15

RE: Vista 64 - 6/23/2007 4:59:59 AM

Warspite3

Posts: 210
Joined: 3/31/2005
Status: offline

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Hi all,

Guys, please listen, the 64-bit OS (wheather Windows XP 64-bit or Windows Vista 64-bit) is not good choice for 99.9999999999% of users!

Why?

Because it is simply not needed.

The 64-bit OS only runs 64-bit applications in "native" mode - the older 32-bit applications (that we all use now) are not run "natively" and, thus, they inheritly run slower (and with possibility of all problems that arise with such "emulated" run).

Also there is a problem with availability of 64-bit drivers for 64 OS.

Therefore, except for some very specialized users who apsolutely have to run apps with huge amounts or memory and that are 64-bit, the 64-bit OS is apsolutely not necessary at all...

Leo "Apollo11"

The thing is, 32-bit vista can only support 4gb ram max. The 64-bit can go up to 32gb ram. Not sure what makes you think 32-bit is faster? This link shows that 64-bit is faster in every mark shown there... http://www.gamingsignal.com/2007/04/64_bit_windows_vista_ultimate.html Another thing, the 32-bit vista within a few years will be discontinued as I have read. Although right now 4gb ram seems like a lot, in only 3 years, it will no longer be alot and if one settles for 32 bit vista, they won't see anything past 4gb ram.

Also, many people think xp is faster. That is not necessarily the case but seems that way because... vista needs ram and tends to take advantage of ram more then xp did. For example, say if I have a pc running xp with 1gb ram, I then upgrade to vista and leave in the 1gb ram, it will be faster when it had xp. Now, if I go to 2gb, thats where vista clearly passes up xp. So if I am running xp with 2gb ram, then I upgrade to vista with 2gb ram, then vista will be faster. It kind of goes up from there, so 3gb ram would really shine. This is my findings after my current build and from the many things I have read on some tech sites and mags. When I had 1gb ram, it was not fast at all, but since I went to 2gb, this pc screams! I certainly don't recommend running vista on anything less then 2gb ram even though it can be done, xp will be a better choice on 1gb pc's.

My main problem with vista is I have run into a few games that just won't run on it. Now, the main games for example Civ4 and GalCiv2 work like a charm. Its usually games from foreign developers that I find won't run on vista such as Trasnport Giant or Pacific Storm and its ashame because I love those games. This said, I have read on here that WitP runs fine on vista so maybe I will finally decide to order it.

< Message edited by Warspite3 -- 6/23/2007 5:30:31 AM >

_____________________________

-Warspite3-

(in reply to Apollo11)

Post #: 16

RE: Vista 64 - 6/23/2007 2:19:28 PM

Apollo11

Posts: 24082
Joined: 6/7/2001
From: Zagreb, Croatia
Status: offline

Hi all,

quote:

ORIGINAL: Warspite3

quote:

ORIGINAL: Apollo11

Guys, please listen, the 64-bit OS (wheather Windows XP 64-bit or Windows Vista 64-bit) is not good choice for 99.9999999999% of users!

Why?

Because it is simply not needed.

The 64-bit OS only runs 64-bit applications in "native" mode - the older 32-bit applications (that we all use now) are not run "natively" and, thus, they inheritly run slower (and with possibility of all problems that arise with such "emulated" run).

Also there is a problem with availability of 64-bit drivers for 64 OS.

Therefore, except for some very specialized users who apsolutely have to run apps with huge amounts or memory and that are 64-bit, the 64-bit OS is apsolutely not necessary at all...

The thing is, 32-bit vista can only support 4gb ram max. The 64-bit can go up to 32gb ram. Not sure what makes you think 32-bit is faster? This link shows that 64-bit is faster in every mark shown there... http://www.gamingsignal.com/2007/04/64_bit_windows_vista_ultimate.html Another thing, the 32-bit vista within a few years will be discontinued as I have read. Although right now 4gb ram seems like a lot, in only 3 years, it will no longer be alot and if one settles for 32 bit vista, they won't see anything past 4gb ram.

Please show me any "normal" program that needs so much RAM?

Today's programs (including most complex games) runs just fine on 2 GB machines... over that is just plain "overkill"...

And benchmarks (especially "synthetic" ones) are totally useless in real world)...

BTW I am IT professional and for past 15+ years I worked with hundreds of PC's which I repaired and/or assembled (since I am System Administrator I only do that for myself, my friends and certain workstations at work because I always want to stay current with latest developments and "hands on").

quote:

Also, many people think xp is faster. That is not necessarily the case but seems that way because... vista needs ram and tends to take advantage of ram more then xp did. For example, say if I have a pc running xp with 1gb ram, I then upgrade to vista and leave in the 1gb ram, it will be faster when it had xp. Now, if I go to 2gb, thats where vista clearly passes up xp. So if I am running xp with 2gb ram, then I upgrade to vista with 2gb ram, then vista will be faster. It kind of goes up from there, so 3gb ram would really shine. This is my findings after my current build and from the many things I have read on some tech sites and mags. When I had 1gb ram, it was not fast at all, but since I went to 2gb, this pc screams! I certainly don't recommend running vista on anything less then 2gb ram even though it can be done, xp will be a better choice on 1gb pc's.

Windows XP is faster than Windows Vista.

Games on Windows XP run faster than on Windows Vista.

That's the fact of life.

Same as Windows 98 is faster than Windows XP (nothing can beat speed of Windows 98 in plain office environment).

But why people then moved from Windows 98 to Windows 2000 and Windows XP?

Because new applications arrived that required new OS and new games arrived that only worked on Windows XP (in the beginning every single game that worked on Windows 98 was faster than on Windows XP)!

Also new functionality of OS was great lure and many people transferred (but it took some time and please note that even today many many companies worldwide, including USA, still operate Windows 98 and Windows 2000 refusing to go to Windows XP).

There are also preinstalled machines that always come with new OS so many people automatically move to newer OS when they buy new PC.

quote:

My main problem with vista is I have run into a few games that just won't run on it. Now, the main games for example Civ4 and GalCiv2 work like a charm. Its usually games from foreign developers that I find won't run on vista such as Trasnport Giant or Pacific Storm and its ashame because I love those games. This said, I have read on here that WitP runs fine on vista so maybe I will finally decide to order it.

In time we will all be "forced" to move to Windows Vista (because some new software will only run on Windows Vista) but for time being this is really not needed for vast majority of users - only if someone prefers new GUI I would recommend it (I myself disable "Themes" service on Windows XP as default - I have no love for fancy GUI at all - I want speed and functionality!)...

Leo "Apollo11"

_____________________________

Prior Preparation & Planning Prevents Pathetically Poor Performance!

A & B: WitW, WitE, WbtS, GGWaW, GGWaW2-AWD, HttR, CotA, BftB, CF
P: UV, WitP, WitP-AE

(in reply to Warspite3)

Post #: 17