Vista Home Premium 64-bit Suites/Products

[Coolio10]

I now have vista home premium 64-bit and looking for suites or single av/firewalls that work on this OS. Preferably ones with no missing features (e.g. norton and kaspersky).

Using KIS 8 right now but even with quad core and 4gbs of ram it slows the opening of installers by many seconds and sometimes browsing speed.

So as i said before Suites or Combinations of products are fine as long as they work on this OS.

[Arup]

The built in firewall works best but if you want a true x64 one, Comodo is the only one that works under true x64 mode. For AV, Avast and Avira work fine under x64.

[sukarof]

Look´n´Stop is true 64bit firewall. Rising Firewall works in Vista 64 too (even though it isnt genuine 64bit).

[midway40]

I am running avast! Pro on mine now. The only difference from the 32 bit version I have noticed is no boot scan. Otherwise it has been trouble-free in operation.

However it is not a true 64 bit application (see pic)

Right now I am using Windows Firewall with my NAT router.

[CountryGuy]

Coolio, I agree with your concerns about things being missing, but remember that not everything missing is a vendor issue (or even necessarily a bad thing) with Vista 64. Some functionality - no matter the vendor - wont work against the 64 bit kernel. Products that aren't missing anything probably didn't have that type of functionality for XP.

As with anything, go with what makes YOU comfortable, but I wanted to point this out as pretty much all of the products I've seen have differences between Vista 32 and 64.

[King Grub]

I use Outpost Pro Firewall with Vista x64, and it works fine. There is a separate download for the 64-bit version.

[DevilFrank]

Windows Live OneCare is the solution with native 64Bit - service for firewall and av-scanner.

[RejZoR]

Well, i've been tlking to ALWIL guys and they said there wasn't any real benefit from going native 64bit. Kernel drivers are 64bit because thats a requirement, but software on top of it can be 32bit. And i don't seem to have any problems with it, either stability or performance wise.

[gery]

Trend Micro i think has an installer for 64

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Well, i've been tlking to ALWIL guys and they said there wasn't any real benefit from going native 64bit. Kernel drivers are 64bit because thats a requirement, but software on top of it can be 32bit. And i don't seem to have any problems with it, either stability or performance wise." }-
Except you're running via WOW64, which means double the memory usage and possibly slight scan speed decreases due to overhead of the emulation layer (unlikely though).

Double the memory usage for a 32-bit application running in 64-bit Windows is itself a big enough reason to make applications natively 64-bit IMO. But its no issue if you have truckloads of RAM :)

AVG Internet Security works with Vista x64. I have not tried it out however so I cannot comment on any specifics of whether it runs in native 64-bit mode or 32-bit mode.

[entropism]

AVG is 32 bit. And lets be honest here... You're not going to be running Vista x64 without 4GB of ram, so doubling the ram on something like Avira, for instance... 9MB on my system, so 4.5MB on x86? Not a huge deal to say the least...

[Kerodo]

Yeah, I doubt doubling ram is an issue these days. I have 4 gigs ram on Vista x64, and I could care less if my AV uses 20mb, 50mb, 100mb or even 200mb, as long as performance is good and it does it's job.

[midway40]

That is what RAM is there for ;D

[Kerodo]

-{ Quote: "That is what RAM is there for ;D" }-
:thumb:

[RejZoR]

-{ Quote: "Except you're running via WOW64, which means double the memory usage and possibly slight scan speed decreases due to overhead of the emulation layer (unlikely though).

Double the memory usage for a 32-bit application running in 64-bit Windows is itself a big enough reason to make applications natively 64-bit IMO. But its no issue if you have truckloads of RAM :)

AVG Internet Security works with Vista x64. I have not tried it out however so I cannot comment on any specifics of whether it runs in native 64-bit mode or 32-bit mode." }-

With 6GB of RAM i really couldn't care less about memory usage...
And even if the memory usage is doubled, Windows report 37MB for all processes. Thats nothing. I've been using 64bit Vista with 2GB of RAM for some time before i added extra 4GB.

[vlk]

-{ Quote: "Except you're running via WOW64, which means double the memory usage and possibly slight scan speed decreases due to overhead of the emulation layer (unlikely though)." }-

Double the memory usage? Why?

I don't see the point.:shifty:


Cheers
Vlk

[Arup]

I run Avira on one x64 PC and Avast on other, none of them are consuming double the memory as compared to the x32 version.

[vijayind]

Webroot's SpySweeper 6.0 range is now Vista x64 compatible. May be you could check it out.
It does come with some 0-day protection. Plus it uses Sophos AV scanner, so not bad.

[Firecat]

-{ Quote: "Double the memory usage? Why?

I don't see the point.:shifty:


Cheers
Vlk" }-
Well, I'm not 100% sure about it but I assume this article is correct:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-xp-x64,1104.html

And while it only described Windows XP 64-bit, I would think that the situation is applicable to Vista too as both use similar WOW64 technology:

-{ Quote: "However, the memory advantage can turn into a disadvantage if you don't have enough of it. As each data chunk is 64 bits long, 32 bit chunks of a 32 bit legacy application can consume double the memory compared to running under a 32 bit OS. From this point of view, it does not make much sense to run Windows XP x64 with only a small amount of memory. If you go for this latest version, we recommend installing at least a gigabyte of RAM.
" }-

[RejZoR]

Ah, Tom's Hardware... i wouldn't trust all they say.

[Arup]

As far as I can tell after running x64 OS since its inception as XPx64 beta, the memory use is far more efficient than its x32 counterpart. It uses the 4GB efficiently than x32 would for 2GB.

[vlk]

-{ Quote: "Well, I'm not 100% sure about it but I assume this article is correct:

http://www.tomshardware.com/reviews/windows-xp-x64,1104.html

Originally Posted by Tom's Hardware
However, the memory advantage can turn into a disadvantage if you don't have enough of it. As each data chunk is 64 bits long, 32 bit chunks of a 32 bit legacy application can consume double the memory compared to running under a 32 bit OS. From this point of view, it does not make much sense to run Windows XP x64 with only a small amount of memory. If you go for this latest version, we recommend installing at least a gigabyte of RAM." }-


They can't be serious. This is definitely not the case.

In fact, for many reasons, running 32-bit apps under 64-bit Windows will deliver better performance than running them under 32-bit OS (this applies especially to memory-hungry apps).

And the memory consumption is more or less the same (plus minus the overhead of the WOW64, which is negligible).