Posted 11/18/09 at 04:09:38 PM by Bart Salisbury

Microsoft is doing some chest-thumping over the advantages of it’s 64-bit operating systems. According to Joe Faulhaber, who works at the Microsoft Malware Protection Center, the 64-bit versions of Windows and Vista are less likely than their 32-bit counterparts to be infected with malware.

According to Faulhaber, who relied on information gathered by Microsoft’s Malicious Software Removal Tool (MSRC), during the first half of 2009 64-bit XP was 48 percent less likely to be infected, while 64-bit Vista was 35% less likely to be infected. No information was available for Windows 7 for the obvious reason it hadn’t yet been released, but it is expected the same would hold true for it. Faulhaber suggests the reason 64-bit versions are more secure is that malware, written mostly for the 32-bit world, is confused by 64-bit.

Not so fast, chicken Marengo! Alfred Hunger, vice president of engineering at the security firm Immunet, and formerly of Symantec, says there’s plenty of 64-bit malware out there. In fact, its a pretty easy thing for malware creates to whip up 64-bit versions if and when they desire. The low levels of 64-bit infection, he says, is more due to the low levels of 64-bit penetration in the market. If there aren’t all that many people using it there’s no incentive for malware makers to pay attention.

Microsoft’s own bi-annual Security Intelligence Report offers up another possibility: 64-bit users are smarter than 32-bit users. Being technologically more savvy they are less likely to bring malware onto their machines. The report concludes that as 64-bit spreads from the provenance of techno-geeks the current difference in infection rates between 32-bit and 64-bit will evaporate.

Read More

Posted 09/09/09 at 08:00:14 PM by The Maximum PC Staff

I have 32-bit Vista installed on my system and have had it since it was released back in ’07. Each day when I start up, I sit and watch the cursor spin and watch the task bar fill. Every time I think it’s ready to go, it loads more programs. Is there some sort of graphical bar or gauge that can be loaded onto the desktop at logon that will show all of my background services loading, so I can tell at a glance whether my computer is actually ready to go? Windows 7 beta still offers NO progress bar/gauge to indicate when all background services are finished loading. I have used Sabayon Linux in the past and it did have a progress bar before the desktop had even appeared. This has really been a pain in my “mouse click,” so if you can help with this I would really appreciate it.

Read on to see the answer to Ray's question.

Read More

Posted 10/28/08 at 10:31:26 AM by Paul Lilly

The decision to go with a 64-bit version of Vista over its 32-bit counterpart remains a dubious one, but not so as far as netbook vendors are concerned. Most new laptops are now shipping with a 64-bit OS. Take Best Buy's newest shipment of HP laptops, for example, who shows 11 models listed as "new arrivals." All but three come with Vista 64-bit, with the remaining models sporting Windows Vista Business downgraded to XP Pro, also in 64-bit form.

Falling memory prices could be one reason for the sudden push into 64-bit territory. Of the 9 laptops outfitted with Vista, all of them come spec'd with 4GB of RAM. But is a 64-bit OS truly necessary to take advantage of 4GB or more?

"The 64-bit versions of Windows can utilize more memory than 32-bit versions of Windows," Microsofts writes in its FAQ. "This helps minimize the time spent swapping processes in and out of memory by storing more of those processes in Random access memory (RAM) rather than on the hard disk. This, in turn, can increase overall program performance."

Running 4GB of RAM on a 32-bit OS isn't a complete waste, but because most systems will only show around 3.25GB as being installed, it's easy to see why notebook vendors would opt for a 64-bit OS to avoid customer confusion. Throw into the mix that hardware and peripheral support in Vista 64-bit is very good and it becomes a low risk option.

Hit the jump and tell us what flavor of Vista you'd prefer to have on your notebook: 32-bit or 64-bit?

Read More

Posted 08/05/08 at 09:18:38 AM by Chris Moody

64-bit operating systems are certainly nothing new and when they first launched they weren’t even highly anticipated. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition only created a small amount of excitement and that died a quick death when the complaints about driver issues, Windows Explorer bugs in 64-bit mode, and 16-bit programs being unsupported started to roll in.

It was just too green to be of any real use to me, despite my 64-bit processor. I love to tinker with my PC, but I also want it to be stable and work well with lots of peripherals.

With the release of Service Pack 1 for Vista I decided to give it another try with my workstation and was pleasantly surprised, both by Vista (not the evil, vile monster it was at launch) and 64-bit computing. It seems that others are beginning to share that feeling.

Make the jump to see how many more Vista 64-bit OSs are hitting Windows Update

Read More

Posted 08/17/07 at 11:58:29 PM by Mark Soper

Hitting the virtual address space wall when you play games on 32-bit Windows Vista? Get Microsoft's hotfix now!

Read More