Im wondering whats more important to get next. right now i have Windows vista ultimate 32bit OEM version. 4gigs system ram, 3870x2 in crossfire with 3870 OC version. but system only see total ram plus video ram as 3.5-3.7 i know to get 64 bit vista i need to purchase the full version (270$ or so) but also had my eye on the Q9650 processor, 3.0ghz etc quad core 500$, either those two or a 4870x2... basically i don't know right now whats the priority. I heard Crossfire, and ATI modded drivers (or the way they have them done now) are better with the 64 bit platform. if so how much better? and what should i do? video card, cpu, OS?
i'm not sure of the legal intricacies, but your 32-bit key will work on a 64-bit version. you just have to find a 64-bit installer cd. spending $270 on windows is definitely a waste of money. the graphics is probably the first thing i'd upgrade, but honestly, you have a great computer, you really don't need to upgrade. if i were you i'd find some other toys to spend my money on. or else save your money until nehalem. and overclock that cpu before you upgrade it. no point forking out cash when you can improve your performance in bios.
I have to agree with supertoad. Ask a friend to lend you Vista 64-bit (any editions, all the disk are the same) disk, and use YOUR product key. Buying another Vista for the same machine is a waste of money.
I ordered a 64 bit dvd, and went to install and my 32 bit cd never worked, i called in though and they gave me a new product key after a good 20 minutes of explaining to the damn people... I don't know why an American company runs it's tech support in India, sure they save money, but it was soo difficult to understand the clerk helping me, and it took a good 5 minutes for him to read me the damn product key because i couldn't understand if he was saying B or V, etc. etc.
Can i do a dual bootup? if i try to install the 64bit Ultimate, it removes/ has to delete everyone on my 32bit OS right? if so can i do a dual boot 32 and 64 bit?
Personally, I believe that doing dual boot is too time consuming and complicated. I say, if you know that all your devices will work under Vista 64-bit, then their is no need of the 32-bit edition. Frankly, I should be the contrary, you have the 64-bit and you dual boot the 32-bit. As the 64-bit is more polished then the 32-bit version.
You can dual/triple/quad-boot many different OS' on the same system, so I don't see why 32bit and 64bit versions of the same OS (/Vista) "can't live on the same machine" They'd be installed in separate partitions - such that they're completely independent of one another. So what are your reasons for saying they can't?
