Windows Xp Pro X64 Edition

[akijikan 0]

I know this version of Windows addresses the AMD64 chip natively when you use 64-bit programs, and therefore often takes advantage of 64-bit technology, but when I am using it, it feels more sluggish than regular Windows XP pro.I am considering switching back (though I'd need to buy a new license since I acquired my copy of XP x64 through the Technology Exchange Program, and effectively surrendered my old XP Pro license).I think the issue here is that there are not enough programs that are 64 bit.Does anyone else have any other thoughts?

[IWroteCode 0]

I have heard the same thing from other people who have used that version of windows. They all found it more sluggish than XP pro before the upgrade. I do agree that 64 big technology is coming into bloom and that a lot of software just doesnt take advantage of it. My thoughts are that i would try and stick it out since if you buy a new Pro key now you will probobly just upgrade back to the 64 bit OS in a year or two, so it would end up a waste, unless the slowdowns seem unbarable, that is.

[vizskywalker 0]

XP Pro 64bit ws writtenf or one reason. Intel was refusing to make a 64bit chip until there wasa 64 bit Windows, and windows was refusing to make a 64bit OS until there was a 64bit Intel chip. To resolve the issue, windows made a verison of XP which used 64 bit versions of simple 32bit command such as ADD, or AND, so when running 32bit software, the 32 bit commands must first be changed to 64 commands, slowing the process down. However, MS decided to take advantage of having made the conversion, so they sold it anyway, with almost no marketing. The true 64 bit Windows OS will be Vista, which, since it should be out in under a year, I would recommend waiting for instead of getting XP32 bit, unless you already have the install Cd and just need to downgrade.~Viz

[Killer008r 0]

Instead of getting windows 64 bit, if you know basic Linux programming, Buy a OS called Linspire, the current version is sopposed to allow you to use the programs off of a fat32 partition, and what ever mac is partitioned on. (You know what that means?) It's windows, linux and Mac all-in-one. And there is a 64 bit version of it.

[akijikan 0]

Instead of getting windows 64 bit, if you know basic Linux programming, Buy a OS called Linspire, the current version is sopposed to allow you to use the programs off of a fat32 partition, and what ever mac is partitioned on. (You know what that means?) It's windows, linux and Mac all-in-one. And there is a 64 bit version of it.

1064324862[/snapback]

Macs are for liberals and who runs fat32 anymore? I really don't think I'll ever pay for linux though. I'm kinda meh on it anyway. I can't even ndiswrapper my way into setting up wireless on this laptop and so I've put it aside.

 

I like the potential for Vista. I'm running beta 1 right now. I want the full feature set though, then I'll be a pure Micro$oft fan. Too bad Win FS isn't running well.

 

Since the AMD64 chip can execute x86 instructions natively, Microsoft should have included the option for those to be passed to the chip without going through the WOW64 emulation layer.

[qwijibow 0]

+Vizskywakled is correct.Windows x86_64 is more of a proof of concept.Released so that Intel would release a desktop 64bit CPU.Windows 64 uses emulation to execute your 32bit software.And currently, all windows software is still 32 bit.Unless you have an operating system like *BSD, or GNU/Linux there is no point in having a 64bit CPU untill windows releases a proper 64bit Operating system, and other software ventors release 64bit applications.By installing 64bit windows, you are forcing windows to Emulate all of your 32bit software.Which is a real shame, because the Amd64 chip can run native 32bit AND 64bit at the same time.Not only does windows64 not take advantage of the full 64bit architechture, it wasts time emulating the 32bit code.Just wait till you get an OS with full 64bit support... My Athlon64 3400+ FLYS !

[akijikan 0]

Vizskywakled is correct.

 

Windows x86_64 is more of a proof of concept.

Released so that Intel would release a desktop 64bit CPU.

 

Windows 64 uses emulation to execute your 32bit software.

And currently, all windows software is still 32 bit.

 

Unless you have an operating system like *BSD, or GNU/Linux there is no point in having a 64bit CPU untill windows releases a proper 64bit Operating system, and other software ventors release  64bit applications.

1064324892[/snapback]

To say that all windows software is 32bit is incorrect. Most is, but not all.

[unimatrix 0]

I've worked around 64-bit Chips from DEC, Sun, and IBM for about 8 years off and on. There is a lot of hype, especially from AMD, about 64-bit and what it can do. Here is something I learned along time ago using SUN systems.All the engineering workstations were running 32-bit chips. Why? Almost every application ran much faster than their 64-bit counter parts. Now when they needed to run simulations and crunch large numbers, they would send the datasets to 64-bit chips on the Sun servers. By the nature of how 64-Bit systems work, most applications you use in 64-bit are going to run slower than their 32-bit counterparts. Sounds odd, but its true. Partly because of optimization, partly because of the nature of the beast. Now, if your doing a lot of CPU number crunching, let's say like rendering 3D animation, you'll see a difference if the rendering engine is tweaked for the 64-bit platform. People have often wondered why Apple continues to release 32-Bit OS's on their 64-bit G5 flatform allowing programs that can use the 64-bit horse power via extentions (say PS, Final Cut Pro, etc). Well same thing, you write a 64-bit OS and non-64-bit programs, say like Mail, Safari, MS Office, etc. performance suffers greatly. Something else that I haven't heard mentioned very often, but is an old saying for those of us that's been around 64-bit processors: double the bits, double the RAM. One engineer told me that basically, you need twice the ram because the system is handling twice as many 1's and 0's at once over a 32-bit system. Makes sense and we did notice large performance differences on our DEC boxes with 2GB's over 1GB of RAM. How much that holds true still today....can't really tell you. Even in gaming, I'm not sure how much more power the 64-bits actually buys you. Some people swear buy it, but I have XP pro installed alongside OS X.4 Intel on the developers box we have and we ran a weekend test with BF 2 with a 3Ghz P4 vs. 2.8 Ghz Althon64 (can't remember...3000+, 3400+, something like that). We didn't benchmark with software galore, but if we didn't tell you what box the display was plugged into, you couldn't tell a difference. Personally I think its more a pride issue amoungst gamers than performance. Amd64 is just "cooler" and makes one more "elite" and crap like that. At home I still have all 32-Bit G3 or G4 Machines with a PS2 mini for games. Some how, 64-bits seems a waste of money for downloading music from iTunes, converting friend's VHS home movies to DVD's and checking email for me. As far as games...I'll stick with my trusty PS2 mini until I can't find games for it.

[-flAsh- 0]

Well XP 64 runs nice but softwares are lackingEven compulsaries like Antivirus and Drivers are in Beta stage.Moreover Dual Core and Quad Core CPU's are appearing in market and thus makin XP 64 a attractionBUT AMD64 beats P4 32-bit in every gaming benchmarkBTW I have AMD Athlon64 X2 4200+

[qwijibow 0]

ouble the RAM. One engineer told me that basically, you need twice the ram because the system is handling twice as many 1's and 0's at once over a 32-bit system.

this is complete rubbish.

Here's is one reason we need 64bit...

In 32bit systems, the maximum about of addressabloe ram is about 712 megs in practice. (a little elss than theory)

Seriously, your computer can only use 712 megs of ran at once.

When you are running more ram than that on a 32bit system (for example a gig of ram).
you are adding an overhead, as the kernel has to start using ofsets to address the different areas of ram.

this slows the machine down.

a 64bit Cpu can address hundreds of gigabytes of ram... which should be more than enought for quite a while now.

[twitch 0]

I don't see why 64bit has come out. So far, I know of no software that is suited to 64bit processors. They may be clocked faster, but I would rather prefer the dual-core 32bit type.

[vizskywalker 0]

In 32bit systems, the maximum about of addressabloe ram is about 712 megs in practice. (a little elss than theory)
Seriously, your computer can only use 712 megs of ran at once.

Where'd you hear this qwiji? I've used programs (and written a couple) that access memory outside of that range, and access true memory (not virtual RAM) over the 768MB mark.

~Viz

[david_ytk 0]

although my CPU is run on 64bit, but i won't use 64bit windows, because most of the software doesn't support 64bit yet...