Vista 64 - I'm done with it on my current computer

Ok I know there's another thread, but I needed to rant. I know there's some diehard Vista fans in here, and I was one of them.

Old computer:
Vista 32, 2GB RAm, 2.1Ghz Cpu, 8800gtx, p5n-e sli mobo
Bought:
Vista 64, 8GB RAm, 2.8Ghz Quad Core

Installed 64(after a gawdawful amount of time)

upgrade to 8GB ram... crashed BIOS
upgrade to 6GB ram... funky system behavior

installed a new bios
upgrade to 8GB ram... still doesnt work
upgrade to 6GB ram... nope

upped RAM voltage in BIOS settings
8gb.. nope
6gb... ok were getting somewhere

installed new CPU
...and we are crashing again
...play with this voltage setting, this ram timing, yada yada yada.... reset the BIOS probably 100 times(I had a sore on my thumb to prove it, lol)

gave up on anything past 4GB

so... 4GB is working fine with new quad core.. or is it. Every day I get a BSOD. Every damn day, no exceptions. Yes I upgraded my GTX to 64bit drivers. Yes my mobo has 64bit bios. Yes this drives me nuts, yes I'm ready to throw this computer out in the street.

In fact while I was writing this rant, guess what? My computer crashed.

Anyone know if XP64 is better? I want 8gb ram and a quad core for my multiboxing damnit.

p.s. again I know I'm not a computer wiz, but sheesh how much should I have to know to get a system thats supposed to be user friendly to work?? I should have been able to just install everything and boot up. Ya dream on I know.

It's not the OS, it's the hardware. You either have a problem with the motherboard or the ram. I work on server hardware w/ 16-32gb ram all the time and most of the issues you describe tend to lead me to troubleshooting the motherboard and/or ram itself.

I second that... either MB or RAM... but my experience tells me your RAM might have some problems...

I gave up on Vista and went back to win2k ...

I show 3.6 gig ram in task manager (cause I get .5 extra from motherboard rom), good enough.

Heh, talked to a pc sales person and asked why they didnt offer xp64 and the response was that xp64 has more problems than vista64. Guess 8GB will be that pie in the sky I never see, well and stability. If it's the RAM, strange that both sets of RAM(2x2GB) crash the BIOS, guess that means both sets are bad?

[quote='Multibocks',index.php?page=Thread&postID=13 1017#post131017]Heh, talked to a pc sales person and asked why they didnt offer xp64 and the response was that xp64 has more problems than vista64. Guess 8GB will be that pie in the sky I never see, well and stability. If it's the RAM, strange that both sets of RAM(2x2GB) crash the BIOS, guess that means both sets are bad?[/quote][font='Comic Sans MS, sans-serif']Maybe, if you don't handle them carefully enough, but it also could be your MB....[/font]

Or 1000 other possible things that by the time you figure out which one it is windows 7 will be out ...

I picked all my parts and paid the shop to assemble the machine for me. I installed Vista 64. I added another 2x 2GB RAM to bring my total to 8GB. I've had zero problems with Vista. I never crash running 5x WoW for many many hours. I almost never shutdown/restart the PC, only put it into sleep mode when I am not using it.

Maybe I was just very lucky with the components I picked. I would buy a Gigabyte MB again in a heartbeat, been extremely stable for me thusfar but I also haven't overclocked anything.

My board is Asus, with vista 32 it was fine. I'm attempting to run memtest on my machine right now, soon as I burn it to CD. Will see if my memory is bad.

Vista x64 is the most stable OS I have ran since Win XP Pro. For me, Win XP Pro (fully patched) is becoming very flaky. Before long you will either have to sit at SP2 on XP or move to Vista. I have used every flavor of Vista so far and the only one I can stand is Ultimate x64.

I almost always have problems upgrading RAM on high end systems. Some RAM just doesn't like to work. My advice: spending more for expensive RAM is worth the pain of not having cheap RAM work. Some of my RAM constantly crashes my system as soon as I have too much loaded on it. : /

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'thinus',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131026#post1 31026

I would buy a Gigabyte MB again in a heartbeat, been extremely stable for me.

---

I wouldn't as I had similar problem using a Gigabyte MB, the problem is still unresolved (the best the computer shop tech's could come up with is that when the computer is cold (has been off for hours etc) the problem happened but if it was warm (had been running or restarted after a bsod) it was fine o_0) but I have been given a new ASUS MB and there have been no problems at all. In my searching I cam accross a lot of information with other people having similar problems, best I can offer you is this, increase your ram voltage or replace you motherboard with a totaly differnt product.

If that fails maybe Linux might solve your problems :P

Every Asus board i've ever owned, new or not, has had similar problems. My diagnosis, Cheap shitty PCB's. You cant solder high quality ic's/resistors/sockets/ect (various other crap on mobo's ) on a cheap thin pcb that sounds like aluminum foil when it flexes even the slightest bit. now my Abit mobo, i've never had a problem with. 3.6ghz E8400 on air cooling, stable. 4gb OCZ Reaper. (2x2gb)

I love Vista 64, my system havent crashed a single time for a month or so and thats from running 5xwow and rarely closes down my computer.
Your problem is not Vista 64, but the hardware.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Multibocks',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131017#p ost131017

Heh, talked to a pc sales person and asked why they didnt offer xp64 and the response was that xp64 has more problems than vista64. Guess 8GB will be that pie in the sky I never see, well and stability. If it's the RAM, strange that both sets of RAM(2x2GB) crash the BIOS, guess that means both sets are bad?

---

I think you should be talking with a tech person where you bought your hardware instead. Have you done your research (a well crafted google query is all it takes) to see if that is happening to someone else? You haven't listed any hardware ... did you follow specific instructions for your components (as an example, the voltage for my OCZ reaper is 2.1, but the MB default is 1.8, I had to adjust that).

I am not sure if you are using vista 64 SP1 or not. Without SP1 you can only use 2 GB for the install, then apply a patch from MS, and then install the rest of the RAM. How's your power supply? how hot is it in the computer room? yes, so many variables ... ;-)

I also suggest downloading ubuntu linux on a different computer and burn to a CD. Pop the CD in and try to start it up, go online and so on (you don't need to install linux, it just runs out of the CD). If it crashes there as well, chances are windows is not the problem.

It's not the OS. You have hardware problems.

Vista 64 has been rock-solid for me. I had similar issues with a set of RAM that was flaky, but once I got some good sticks, all problems were solved.

I have tested both of my systems with 8 Gb of ram (4x2gb) with no problems. Just make sure you have good quality ram and the latest Bios Firmware if you are experiencing issues.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'spannah',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131152#post 131152

You haven't listed any hardware ... did you follow specific instructions for your components (as an example, the voltage for my OCZ reaper is 2.1, but the MB default is 1.8, I had to adjust that).

I am not sure if you are using vista 64 SP1 or not. Without SP1 you can only use 2 GB for the install, then apply a patch from MS, and then install the rest of the RAM. How's your power supply? how hot is it in the computer room? yes, so many variables ... ;-)

I also suggest downloading ubuntu linux on a different computer and burn to a CD. Pop the CD in and try to start it up, go online and so on (you don't need to install linux, it just runs out of the CD). If it crashes there as well, chances are windows is not the problem.

---

1. I listed that I had a p5n-e sli mobo(in the first post).. the only thing I didnt tell you is that it is Corsair RAM pc6400. Nothing else matters.
2. Yes I did my research, unfortunately no post I have come across had a solution and if they did - it didnt work for me(most were bios configurations.)
3. I increased my RAM voltage to 2.2 (waaay above the 1.8 recommended) and at 6gb it was flaky(again in the first post.)
4. The OS works fine most of the time, it just randomly crashes. I have a startup procedure ( I don't touch the computer for 5 mins after it starts up, you can't even move the mouse. Once the windows UAC warning shows up and it hasnt crashed I'm golden for at least a few hours of play.) So I don't understand your suggestion of DLing linux? I'm not really into OS software that requires research to use common features.
5. PS is 600 Watts, should be ok - biggest drag is the GTX, the room is not hot - maybe 65 degrees F.

edit: and yes I'm using vista 64 sp1
editx2: Forgot to mention that I just, last night, tested my 4gb of ram with memtest and it is fine.

I have two Vista x64 machines with 6 GB RAM in each. They work awesome, boot fast, extremely stable, no problems with WoW or addons. I'm thinking one of the factors above is more likely than just blaming the OS.

I'm blaming Microsoft for not pushing 3rd parties harder to make their stuff stable. I realize that Vista is probably working fine, it's just the hardware isn't digging 64bit. I dunno, I'm reluctant to spend anymore on this machine and I'm currently searching for a premade PC that has a stable Vista64 setup. My brother bought Cyberpower and their awfully budget conscious, but his crashes every day. I want something thats stable out of the box and at this point I'm willing to pay a premium for that experience.

edit: Hah I guess the title should change - I want a 64bit experience (more RAM), and I'm willing to try it on a different machine, but I've given up on my current computer.

I was running Vista 64 bit for the last month and I've been impressed with the performance. Unfortunately, last weekend I have since downgraded to Vista 32 bit primarily because of lacking third-party support. I have a number of applications and games that won't run on a 64-bit environment, the inconveniences outweighed the advantages.

Check with your motherboard maker for recommended memory. Or you may need to tweak your memory settings to support the specific model of memory you are using.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fleecy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131531#post1 31531

I was running Vista 64 bit for the last month and I've been impressed with the performance. Unfortunately, last weekend I have since downgraded to Vista 32 bit primarily because of lacking third-party support.

---

Which products didn't run on Vista 64?

My main work PC runs Vista 64. I switched over recently and I'm glad I did. It's better than XP in many ways. However Microsoft abandoned its traditional commitment to backward compatibility in many areas, and this is terribly aggravating. tFor example, my XP computers and the Vista computer can no longer find each other reliably on the network.

I just spent over an hour slogging through pages on Microsoft's website trying to fix the problem. Finally I fixed it, but here's what I had to do:

1. Upgrade to XP SP 3.

2. Rename the work group on the Vista machine because -- this is unbelievably stupid -- Vista gives a different name to the work group by default when you create a home network. (I could have renamed the XP machine's work groups instead. Either way works as long as all the machines use one name).

3. Examine the property page for the network adapter in the Vista PC and make sure a couple of settings for the new discovery protocol were enabled.

To require users to go through something like this just to make their new Vista PC work on their existing home network is insane. Something has gone seriously wrong at Microsoft that they could release something that works this way. I've been watching them for 25 years and I can't remember anything like this.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Freddie',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131566#post 131566

To require users to go through something like this just to make their new Vista PC work on their existing home network is insane. Something has gone seriously wrong at Microsoft that they could release something that works this way. I've been watching them for 25 years and I can't remember anything like this.

---

Erm....ever networked Win98 and XP? You also had trouble on the networks and I think you had to create users with identical names on both machines to be able to talk to each other. Not to mention firewall blocking access. And I think you could connect from either XP to Win98 or vice versa but the other way around was much trickier. And I have always had problems with Windows picking up other machines on the network unless you run a domain server.

No, I didn't know that but my network experience is limited. I used to have a Win98 PC on this same network with two XP's and had no trouble. At least I can't remember any.

Edit: On second thought, I think I had trouble getting printer sharing to work with that machine. It's been so long, I can't remember.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Sam DeathWalker',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131025#p ost131025

Or 1000 other possible things that by the time you figure out which one it is windows 7 will be out ...

---

Windows 7 IS Vista.
It's just in disguise ..

Seriously tho, microsoft is only trying to get rid of its bad reputation.

AS for vista 64 im loving it on my new system with 8 gig havent had a crash yet in the last 3 weeks since i got it.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Freddie',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131566#post 131566

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Fleecy',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131531#post1 31531

I was running Vista 64 bit for the last month and I've been impressed with the performance. Unfortunately, last weekend I have since downgraded to Vista 32 bit primarily because of lacking third-party support.

---

Which products didn't run on Vista 64?

---

Dragon NaturallySpeaking, which I use extensively. My NAS (NetGear SC101T) driver and a few small utilities. For a period of time I was able to overlook the disadvantages versus the advantages of 64-bit but in the end it became too frustrating not being able to use and install every application I wanted/needed.


Don't get me wrong, while I was running 64-bit with 8Gb RAM the performance was amazing.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Multibocks',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131029#p ost131029

My board is Asus, with vista 32 it was fine. I'm attempting to run memtest on my machine right now, soon as I burn it to CD. Will see if my memory is bad.

---

Asus is your problem. I have almost the exact same product with an Asus board. Two of the Dimm slots were bad, so when ever I had more memory in them it caused lockups, or the system to not even post.

Thanks, maybe I'll try a new mobo, any suggestions?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Physics101',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131629#p ost131629

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by 'Multibocks',index.php?page=Thread&postID=131029#p ost131029

My board is Asus, with vista 32 it was fine. I'm attempting to run memtest on my machine right now, soon as I burn it to CD. Will see if my memory is bad.

---

Asus is your problem. I have almost the exact same product with an Asus board. Two of the Dimm slots were bad, so when ever I had more memory in them it caused lockups, or the system to not even post.

---

ASUS is not your problem. I've been using and selling ASUS products for years I would rate ASUS higher than many other brands.

Is your newer 4GB of RAM exactly the same timing and voltage type as your older 4GB?

A tool called CPU-Z will help you find out (google for it).