Talk:Windows Vista 64-bit editions

This is intended to be just a start of something bigger.

It is just a work in progress.

Don't delete it, just build on it. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 06:17, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Moved (change name) to Windows Vista 64-bit editions as per Microsoft. --Triwbe (talk) 18:40, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

Undid the deletion. Kept the new name. This article intended to focus on the specifics of the 64 bit edition of Vista. When I was searching for an article about Vista 64 I could not find it. So, therefore, I made it. I don't think that the deletion of the article is warranted, Warren. It is fine that there is an article about Vista, but there seems to be no "we" in the consensus that it be deleted, as you wrote "we absolutely DO NOT need..." in your page deletion/content merge edit. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:55, 10 June 2008 (UTC)

We absolutely do not need TWO articles covering editions of Windows Vista. What is so bloody complicated about this? One article, Windows Vista editions, which has existed since January 2007, will do just fine. -/- Warren 02:20, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Vista 64 and Vista are two completely different operating systems. There does not seem to be any complications about this. Please consider not blanking this article any more. I believe that "We" do need to have a separate article. I am going to revert your edit once again. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 04:04, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

---

Request For Comments:

You're wrong, okay? "Vista 64" (which is not even a real name, so stop using it) is not a different operating system. It is the same operating system, with the same source code, with some different compilation options. That's it! Whether it's been compiled into 32-bit or 64-bit doesn't matter -- it's still Windows Vista. Full stop. Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles for Linux distributions for each process architecture, nor do we have separate articles detailing the 64-bit releases of Windows 2000, Windows XP, Windows Server 2003, or Windows Server 2008. And I mean... come on... how much you could possibly know about this subject if you can't even be bothered to spell "kernel" correctly? -/- Warren 14:11, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think I am wrong, Warren. There are some substantial differences. I have further described the differences in the main article. Even if these differences are implemented with compilation options, they are some substantial compilation options.

I am sorry for the typo about Kernel. Your link to my typo is not very friendly or useful to this discussion.

Most of the differences that I have put into this article are not in the pre-existing Windows Edtions article. Even if you merge them I think it deserves a separate article--Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:23, 11 June 2008 (UTC) --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:14, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

I think Windows Vista 64 is a separate article because Windows Vista editions exists to describe the different types of marketing editions -home- -premium- -ultimate- etc. There is very little in that article which describes how or why 64 bit is different. I think that trying to squeeze the 64 bit differences into that article feels unnatural to me. In other words what makes 64 bit different from 32 bit doesn't have a lot to do with why Basic is different from Unltimate. I think that the difference is profound enough to require a separate exposition. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 20:05, 11 June 2008 (UTC)

Have you considered that there isn't anything different other than it takes full advantage of a 64-bit computer and costs more? We don't have separate articles for 32-bit variants of *nixes and 64-bit variants *nixes, nor do we have such a scheme for every other operating system out there. There is no reason why this case should be different. Rilak (talk) 09:08, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

This is a great question. The way I see it is this 1. This is the first major consumer 64 bit operating system. 2. It operates in a major way different from the 32 bit system. You would have to try it to see what I mean. 3. Microsoft left out some very important items, especially the 16 bit support, which breaks installshield and and lot of 32 bit software that has 16 bit subroutines, or calls 16 bit services. 4. Nobody can just recompile their software at will to fix the 32 bit vs 64 bit issue, as they can with the Unix variants. This is of major notability, especially for people who will struggle to try to make it work. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 13:51, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

I added another ref to the 16 bit installer problems. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 17:39, 12 June 2008 (UTC)

Hmm. Windows XP 64-bit Edition was not the first major consumer 64-bit operating system? Anyways, I don't see why leaving out 16-bit support is a major difference. In 32-bit Windows operating systems I believe (I may be wrong on this), 16-bit device drivers were common, thus the requirement for 16-bit subroutines and calls. As the 64-bit version has a different architecture - 64-bit can (I think) only work with 32-bit code and not 16-bit, it would be natural to leave out something that is unsupported. Since this is a x64 feature, and not a Windows feature, this difference is not notable as any other operating system running in x64 mode would have the same thing (16-bit support) left out if they had it in 32-bit versions. As for nobody being able to recompile Windows to fix the 32- or 64-bit issue, what makes you think that that is a reason that justifies it having its own article? Microsoft does the exact same thing as Linux users do - compile the source with different flags. As for all *nix variants being able to recompile to target 32-bit or 64-bit architectures, I think you left out a lot of proprietary *nixes such as AIX and HP-UX. These *nixes don't distribute the source code or the complete source code to users/customers, just like Microsoft and Vista, so there is no recompile option for them, yet there are no articles for 32-bit and 64-bit versions. I would suggest that this article be merged into the main Vista article. There simply just isn't enough difference. Rilak (talk) 06:16, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Thanks for the comments. Leaveing out 16 bits breaks a lot of software that uses 16 bit parts. Commonly, that is installshield. A lot of very good programs will not install. As far as Unix goes, I think WP:WAX applies (particularly the delete version). The article should stand or fall on it's own, not anything to do with Unix. Vista is not Unix. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 06:35, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

No, *nix is not Vista, but generally, Wikipedia doesn't have separate articles for different variants of the same thing. I only used *nix-based operating systems as an example. I have pretty much said all I can say on this. More comments from others would be great. Rilak (talk) 06:46, 13 June 2008 (UTC)

Yet to be documented are three things: 1. differences in UAC control 2. differneces in the firewall 3. differences in the security settings

Hopefully someone can help fill all this in. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:44, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I think we can close this RfC as the deletion discussion should give the answer, or? Merzul (talk) 12:57, 15 June 2008 (UTC)

I have closed the RfC by deleting the tag. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 18:13, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

I also don't see the need for this article. It seems a very stretched version of what can be written in summarized form and is currently written extremely poorly. Most information is not even Vista-specific, some of it can also fit in this article if written properly using technical wording. At most, a generic long-term article on 64-bit Windows would be apposite. :) - xpclient ^Talk 19:41, 17 June 2008 (UTC)

• There have been a number of suggestions that this information can fit elsewhere, in 5 or 6 different places. The problem with this interpretation is twofold. 1. Wikipedia users are not going to know that the information they seek is in those places. 2. Everything in Wikipedia is available elsewhere. There is nothing in Wikipedia that is not available in other locations. Despite this fact, we still feel the need to write articles. This is one of them. It should be a place where this exact info is summarized, even if it becomes just a stub and a pointer to other places. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 00:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

I don't think so. Users are more likely to search for Windows Vista and expect everything in there, not for a specific article - "Windows Vista" is generic, "Windows Vista 64-bit editions" is not. Plus you have to get that dash between "64" and "bit" and you must remember to include a "s" at the end of edition. Hard to remember, let alone guess. Secondly, not everything is duplicated - there might be a brief intro in one article on something, but if it must be explained in depth, it gets linked to the main article, where most of the content is. When there is significant overlap of content, merges occur. Rilak (talk) 06:20, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Your right about the dash and all. But, I don't mean that everything is duplicated on Wikipedia. I mean that Wikipedia has no original research. Everything on these pages originated elsewhere. There is no unique information. If there was, it would violate wp:nor. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 13:32, 19 June 2008 (UTC)

Consider merge?

After the latest major round of edits, it seems that there really isn't that much unique about Vista 64 and Vista 32. Perhaps a merge should be considered with an appropriate article? The article is now much smaller in size, and I think that its inclusion into another article will not bloat that article, which was a concern expressed before.

To justify my point, consider this statement, "They differ from the 32-bit editions in that the operating systems operate on the 64-bit mode of processors that support that mode." The point of any 64-bit OS is to run on 64-bit hardware. This trait is not exclusive to Windows Vista.

"Old device drivers are particularly problematic, because they need to be rewritten in 64-bit mode. A lot of older hardware doesn't have the necessary support to get the drivers written." Once again, not exclusive to Vista.

"One important difference between the 64-bit edition and the 32-bit edition is the elimination of the capability to run 16-bit programs." As stated before in this talk page, this is due to the hardware, not the software, and once again, this is not exclusive to Vista. 16-bit support is implemented using WOW64, a translator.

"[32-bit editions are limited to 4/64 GB of memory.] The 64-bit version removes this limit. The memory pointers can address large address spaces. Microsoft states that some kinds of tasks, working with video and databases, might perform better in a 64-bit environment." Once again, this is not exclusive to Vista - all 64-bit operating systems that are correctly designed and implemented can support more than 4/64 GB of memory. Also PAE does not enable individual applications to address more than 3 or 3.5 GB of RAM (I forget the exact amount). This too, is not exclusive to Vista.

"Microsoft has stated that prior to installing the 64-bit operating system, one should be sure that the software you wish to run is capable of running under 64-bits, and that the hardware you wish to use has 64-bit drivers." This statement is common sense. We might as well have an article warning people not to touch fire.

Most importantly of all, the entire article (or most of it) can be summed up in a single and rather small section, as demonstrated in Windows Vista editions:

"To support 64-bit platforms such as Intel Core 2, Athlon 64, and AMD Opteron, Microsoft released 64-bit editions of every edition of Windows Vista except for the Starter edition. These editions can run 32-bit programs by running them within the WOW64 subsystem. Most 32-bit programs can run natively, though applications that rely on device drivers will not run unless those device drivers have been written for 64-bit Windows. Much older hardware doesn't have the necessary support to get the drivers written.

Other applications may have difficulty as well. For example, the Visual Basic 6 IDE will run natively on Vista 32, but will not run at all on Windows Vista 64."

Enough to justify at least consideration for a merge? Rilak (talk) 13:08, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

• Personally, I don't think a merge is a good idea, for all the reasons I have noted. And there are so many mistakes in this large round of poorly thought out edits that I don't know where to begin. What the hell does the paragraph that starts with "The 64 bit removes this limit" mean? I am not going to get into an edit war, but that paragraph makes no sense at all. It is just a fragment of a sentence with no meaning on it's own. There are a bunch of other mistakes, too. I have very well sourced data for the security enhancements of Vista 64 bits, and they were summarily removed for absolutely no reason. And once again, Warren quotes articles that have nothing (see article edit history) to do with Vista to try to prove something about DEP. The relevent article proves that Hardare DEP is NOT available in Vista 32. It is here http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765. This series of edits are nearly all wrong. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:04, 23 June 2008 (UTC)
• Additionally, the fact that things are not unique to Vista has nothing to do with this article. This article is about Vista 64-bits. The fact that 64 bits is well documented elsewhere doesn't mean that it isn't notable here. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 16:14, 23 June 2008 (UTC)

I put a band aid on the sentence which didn't make much sense. Previously, I think it was part of an incorrect statement that previous versions of Windows and Vista 32 could not address more than 4 GiB of memory. The editor who made the previous round of edits caught out this rather obvious error, as there were previous versions of Windows that could address 64 GB of memory by using the PAE feature in all 32-bit x86 chips since the Pentium Pro. I still think that a merge should be considered. After the latest round of edits, there isn't that much justification for this article's existence. I will, however, await for more discussion from different editors before doing anything rash. Rilak (talk) —Preceding comment was added at 09:37, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

It is an incorrect assertion that 32 bit Vista can access more than 4 GB. Here is the document from Microsoft http://support.microsoft.com/kb/946765. If there is a reference somewhere otherwise, I would like to see it. But if you quote a reference from Microsoft, then make sure the page says it applies to Vista, because there have been a bunch of assertions here that are wrong because of quotes from Microsoft pages that apply to XP-64 professional and/or Windows Server 2003. Most of those pages specifically exclude Vista. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 14:58, 25 June 2008 (UTC)

I did mention that someone more experienced in Windows operating systems should clarify my band aid edit. It was only meant to be a quick fix to make the paragraph make sense. I'll remove the offending statement. Rilak (talk) 08:51, 26 June 2008 (UTC)

• Reference 9, http://support.microsoft.com/kb/282423, does not apply to Vista at all. it applies to XP professional and Server 2003. It needs to be removed by the person who put it in. This is just one of a whole bunch of mistakes. Vista is not X-64, it is not XP-Professional, it is not Server 2003, it is Vista. People who claim otherwise are mistaken. Please remove it. It is an incorrect reference. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 14:40, 24 June 2008 (UTC)

• There are still a large number of references to NON-Vista pages on Microsoft support sites. These all need to be removed, as they are in error. The 16 bit installer support for 64 bit windows does not apply to Vista. Read the article referenced and it will specifically exlcude Vista. The applicable Vista page removes this support. Please all of you refrain from assuming that all Microsoft pages referring to 64 bit windows applies to Vista, as many of them do not. --Marcwiki9 (talk) 15:01, 1 August 2008 (UTC)

• I agree with the comments suggesting merging this article into Windows Vista editions, this page seems unnecessary.--Superfly Jon (talk) 11:02, 3 October 2008 (UTC)