64-bit Windows Vista gaining momentum, now pre-installed on most PCs
By Justin Montgomery
Seems Vista laced with 64-bit technology is making more headway than previously thought. Now that PC manufacturers are opting to pre-install it over the 32-bit version, adoption numbers are actually on the rise. Consumers with high-memory demands and gaming requirements appreciate the added power boost.
According to CNet, another reason for the shift is the fact that 64-bit machines, unlike their 32-bit counterparts, can directly address more than 4GB of memory. Though not needed in the past, more and more software coming to market these days are aimed at systems running 64-bit chips, and a lot of memory available to support it.
Chris Flores of Microsoft noted in a blog post that already, some 20% of all Windows users that connect to Windows update are accessing via 64-bit machines. This is compared to just 3% in March, which shows the faster adoption, but it still has a lot to do with the simple fact that if it’s pre-installed on the majority of PCs, usage will obviously increase quickly. "Put more simply, usage of 64-bit Windows Vista is growing much more rapidly than 32-bit," he said. "Based on current trends, this growth will accelerate as the retail channel shifts to supplying a rapidly increasing assortment of 64-bit desktops and laptops."
While it’s good news for Windows overall, I still think it’s just a good spin on a minor detail to help its image in regards to Vista adoption. It’s a sad day for Microsoft when you can’t find a single news clip on Vista without it being bad in some way. Still, I don’t see what the big deal is. The OS is still pre-installed on almost EVERY PC sold around the world, so until that changes, and it could be sooner than we think, they really have nothing to worry about.
Related:






Stumble It!

August 7th, 2008
Having tried Vista 32-bit I was hesitant to try the 64-bit version, I mean how good could the rarer version of an unfinished, slow and resource hungry OS be?
I was surprised, not only did it work for me but it kicked the 32-bit version in the goolies. Being able to use my 4Gb Ram really makes a difference.
In fact, I liked it so much that that I even replaced my XP installation with it.
I’ve been playing games, surfing the net and doing Photoshop just fine without any compatibility issues. (Okay, getting a decent 64-bit firewall is nearly impossible)
I don’t know if other people have had issues with Vista 64 but for me it’s a winner.
August 7th, 2008
Justin,
I am intrigued by your turn of phrase “laced with 64-bit technology”. I would personally use the phrase “laced with …” in a different context; perhaps something like “laced with rat poison”. Of course, the irony here is that Microsoft’s “technology” is indeed poison, so one could say “Vista is laced with DRM”, and this would be entirely appropriate.
It’s true that Vista users do need a lot more memory, because Vista is “goatware” - it eats all your resources. So, you part with your hard-earned cash to buy tarted up 2003 code with a GUI that sucks the life out of your CPU, DRM that spys on you, UAC that Microsoft “designed to annoy” you, and you get the 64-bit version to address more memory that you need because of the profligacy and incompetence of morons who couldn’t code to save themselves. Any PC user who considers that to be a good deal deserves to be stuck with Microsoft products, and with the consequences (virus, anyone?).
August 7th, 2008
Hugh
No one listens to fanatics. I’m a Linux user and not fond of Vista, but there is little of any use in your posts because the hatred drowns out the message.
August 7th, 2008
Hugh
No one listens to fanatics. I’m a Linux user and not fond of Vista, but there is little of any use in your posts because the hatred drowns out the message.
August 7th, 2008
Boo-hoo, Hugh.
So people shouldn’t like it because you don’t like it.
Here, let me give you your crown, king of all elite PC users.
August 8th, 2008
Hello Ken,
Nice to talk to you again
Yes, you’re quite right to contend that no one listens to fanatics. I have seen some of the most amazing spleen-venting on the web, and it is usually characterised by lots of bile, a poor grasp of English (to say the least), and the absence of factual content, logic, or coherent reasoning.
In contrast, my post - which I have just re-read - states facts that are known to anyone who cares to do some research, and who possesses critical faculties.
I can find emotive language in my post where I refer to “the profligacy and incompetence of morons who couldn’t code to save themselves”. Even this statement, though, has a basis in fact - just ask anyone who has seen the source code for Microsoft Windows, and they will tell you how bad it is.
Given the above, I am somewhat at a loss as to how you could think that the pejorative “fanatic” is one that can be appropriately applied to me (OK, I admit that the last sentence of my post is a little close to bone). I wouldn’t agree that my posts betray “hatred” - honestly, that is the sort of emotion that one might find on a white supremacist site, rather than in posts from even the most ardent Linux advocate.
Perhaps it’s a cultural thing. I don’t know where you are from, but here in Australia we don’t mind calling a spade a “bloody shovel”, whereas in the U.S. it appears that people are more circumspect (polite?).
Regards,
Hugh
P.S. I shouldn’t have done it, but I asked my wife, and she said that it *does* sound like I’m a fanatic (thanks, dear). Perhaps I should let her edit my posts, but that would, of course, take all the fun out of it.
August 8th, 2008
Bob,
I am glad that 64-bit Vista is a winner for you, but I have a few questions:
1) Do you need anti-virus software?
Do you know how much Linux costs?
2) Do you need anti-spyware software?
3) Do you expect that “Windows rot” and the consequent degradation in performance will necessitate a complete re-installation of Windows within around twelve to eighteen months?
4) How long do you think it will be before Microsoft tries to force you to upgrade by bringing out a new version of their software which has subtle incompatibilities with the current version?
5) When you do upgrade, do you think that performance gains in hardware (Moore’s Law) will be reflected in improved performance by your PC, or will the expected increase in speed be mysteriously absent?
6) Do you think that the next version of Windows will be a re-write from scratch, or a makeover of what you have now?
7) Will the menus and options in the next Windows release have been changed to give the illusion that the code really is new, thereby forcing you onto yet another learning curve?
Are you sure that Vista is a winner for you, rather than for Microsoft, third-party software vendors, and hardware vendors? Do you really think that reasoning and critical analysis constitute “elitism”?
Regards,
Hugh
August 9th, 2008
hi every body …………………..
me from Pakistan i am using Vista 64bit……….
if u have any problem about Vista you contact me i try to solve it……..
August 9th, 2008
Vista preinstalled on most PCs? May be true on consumer PCs but not on the PCs sold to many businesses, I believe.
Many of those PCs are sold with Vista licenses but preinstalled with XP.
As for me, Vista is a memory and resource hog, is incompatible with many older hardware and software, much slower file copying, suddenly reboots when copying files……. just some of the problems I encounter when I test-run Vista on a PC (not my own).
XP/2003 has none of these problems, and is much faster than Vista. I am never going to use or install Vista on my own PC. I test Vista only because of my father’s request to install it on his PC. And for x64, Windows XP x64 and Windows Server 2003 x64 are also better than Windows Vista x64.
For those who finds Vista x64 to be great, good for you. Personally I just don’t agree.
August 10th, 2008
hi
i have a problem when i install Wndows Vista 64bit my internet network hasn’t work it’s a WLAN wireless ,but in the 32bit it’s work good.
i don’t know why.?
please help me to solve this problem with thanks
sincerly,
metin