Windows XP 64 question

[SK-1]

I am thinking of going to XP 64,.is the driver support there?
I want to be able to use 4GB of RAM. Not 2.75GB like 32 shows.

 

[ex_reven]

I am thinking of going to XP 64,.is the driver support there?
I want to be able to use 4GB of RAM. Not 2.75GB like 32 shows.

Depends on your hardware.
The only thing I couldnt get drivers for is my wireless adapter.

You should be able to run it fine though, just check for drivers before you make the change.
I suspect that some of your hardware might not be compatible.

 

[panchoman]

YOU CAN USE UP TO 64 GIGS OF MEMORY IN A 32 BIT OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

 

[ex_reven]

YOU CAN USE UP TO 64 GIGS OF MEMORY IN A 32 BIT OS. http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Physical_Address_Extension

Yes but it will be split 50/50 with kernel.
So he will only be able to use 2gb of his RAM.

Using the /3gb switch will give him 3 gigs of ram for applications and 1 gig for kernel.

 

[panchoman]

well whats it normally?

oh and heres another link:

http://msdn2.microsoft.com/en-us/library/Aa366796.aspx

 

[Kursah]

I'm curious like SK-1 about jumping to 64. I've heard that some not only increase stability, but also performance...I like to listen to tunes, watch movies, play games and play on the web. I am pretty sure my current setup has x64 drivers. What else should be noted when going from x32 to x64? Is it really worth it yet?

 

[panchoman]

its slightly faster, but its got driver issues and compatibility issues. i'd rather stick with 32 bit and have a stable and compatible system.

 

[ex_reven]

I'm curious like SK-1 about jumping to 64. I've heard that some not only increase stability, but also performance...I like to listen to tunes, watch movies, play games and play on the web. I am pretty sure my current setup has x64 drivers. What else should be noted when going from x32 to x64? Is it really worth it yet?

XP 64 is sort of a dead platform IMO.
I dont advise a move to 64 bit unless you really need to do video editing/graphics work on a large scale. If you do go 64 bit, Vista 64 might be the best choice, since its more likely to be supported by your hardware.

Gaming performance is negligible, it did boot faster though. But that was probably due to the lack of anything but Photoshop on that partition.

 

[Wile E]

XP x64 was my favorite Windows OS. Fast, stable and secure. It's basically 2003 Server x64 minus the server stuff, and pre-setup as a desktop. It's far better than 32bit, imo. (If your hardware is supported, that is.) The only issues I ever had with it were with some of the smaller, less known oddball programs and utilities sometimes disagreed with it, but I found suitable replacements for most of them.

The only reason I'm not running it right now, is because I killed the install messing around, and just haven't been arsed to reinstall.

 

[TUngsten]

I agree with WileE
I've been using it for about 10 months, and I haven't had any issues. The ONLY issue I have is that my old Nikon slide scanner (LS2000) software isn't compatible, but that's because the thing is at least 5 or 6 years old. All the GFX/webdesign/games I use work flawlessly.

It's hard to give any real solid proof of this, but XP x64 seems more solid an OS than it's x32 counterpart to me. I don't get any odd crashes, hangups, errors that seemed somewhat regular w/ x32.

I'm really happy with it, and have never used a more stable OS. Quite surprisingly solid, IMHO.

 

[ex_reven]

I agree with WileE
I've been using it for about 10 months, and I haven't had any issues. The ONLY issue I have is that my old Nikon slide scanner (LS2000) software isn't compatible, but that's because the thing is at least 5 or 6 years old. All the GFX/webdesign/games I use work flawlessly.

It's hard to give any real solid proof of this, but XP x64 seems more solid an OS than it's x32 counterpart to me. I don't get any odd crashes, hangups, errors that seemed somewhat regular w/ x32.

I'm really happy with it, and have never used a more stable OS. Quite surprisingly solid, IMHO.

Yeah, did you guys find that it could take alot of punishment without processes stopping responding? Its an absolute beast for work.
But if you dont really need it the effort of moving all your crap onto x64 isnt really worth it.

 

[kwchang007]

Well let me put it this way, it depends on your cpu in regards to performance. It looks like core 2 actually loses a little performance (macro ops is disabled) whereas K8 is about the same or a little slower (talking about a 32 bit process for both in a 64 bit environment). When you factor in 64 bit processes....I think K8 has more improvement than Core 2...but not as much. As for actual processes, as my mom explains it, the only benefit in processing is you can do true floating point on 64 bit.

 

[Disparia]

XP64 is nice. Don't know about the 'surprising' solid part, it's Server 2003 at it's core after all But like the other poster alluded to, it is (was) more of a release for dev's and people that needed it. Vista x64 is the "general purpose" 64bit Windows OS.

If anyone was asking my opinion... I'd go 64bit on pretty much every box with > 2GB RAM. No user/kernel split, PAE (performance hit), /3GB switch (works with apps that are large address aware), etc. It's just easier all-around. And while we'll have 32bit apps and games for years to come, there's a growing number of them that also come with 64bit executables.

 

[AsRock]

XP x64 was my favorite Windows OS. Fast, stable and secure. It's basically 2003 Server x64 minus the server stuff, and pre-setup as a desktop. It's far better than 32bit, imo. (If your hardware is supported, that is.) The only issues I ever had with it were with some of the smaller, less known oddball programs and utilities sometimes disagreed with it, but I found suitable replacements for most of them.

The only reason I'm not running it right now, is because I killed the install messing around, and just haven't been arsed to reinstall.

Yeah been sweet for me to for around 2 years now.

 

[Kursah]

Well I got it installed, was pretty painless, got SP2 on and other updates, installed x64 drivers, so far so good. I wouldn't say I notice any gaming performance increase, or really even OS load performance increase, but so far It's handeling memory better and opening programs quicker IMO, and feels way stable. The only error I've gotten so far is when trying to play UT3 Demo, anyone found a fix for this?

I loaded IE7 and WMP11 (yes I have become accustomed to both, I use Opera as my main browser, and I dig WMP11, it works well for my needs), no issues, fewer updates so far. No major errors so far, Avast works perfectly, still deciding on firewall, not too shabby.

 

[Ravenas]

I am thinking of going to XP 64,.is the driver support there?
I want to be able to use 4GB of RAM. Not 2.75GB like 32 shows.

Driver support has been great so far, besides a usbtv I bought...The drivers are still in beta and arn't properly working.

For everything else the driver support is great. I recommend getting the 64-bit edition, its been a great OS so far.

 

[Wile E]

Well I got it installed, was pretty painless, got SP2 on and other updates, installed x64 drivers, so far so good. I wouldn't say I notice any gaming performance increase, or really even OS load performance increase, but so far It's handeling memory better and opening programs quicker IMO, and feels way stable. The only error I've gotten so far is when trying to play UT3 Demo, anyone found a fix for this?

I loaded IE7 and WMP11 (yes I have become accustomed to both, I use Opera as my main browser, and I dig WMP11, it works well for my needs), no issues, fewer updates so far. No major errors so far, Avast works perfectly, still deciding on firewall, not too shabby.

Ah, forgot about firewalls. I used Kaspersky Internet Security. Works flawlessly.

 

[ChaoticBlankness]

To all those that say compatibility and driver support are lacking you haven't haven't been keeping up at all.

Drivers are available on most common and newer hardware (2002+) and the only compatibility hitch is if a game's installer says you're nor running 2000 or XP.. which can be easily fixed by editing the MSI installer.

 

[Kursah]

To all those that say compatibility and driver support are lacking you haven't haven't been keeping up at all.

Drivers are available on most common and newer hardware (2002+) and the only compatibility hitch is if a game's installer says you're nor running 2000 or XP.. which can be easily fixed by editing the MSI installer.

Can you explain further on editing the MSI Installer? I'm curious of this method...

 

[ChaoticBlankness]

Can you explain further on editing the MSI Installer? I'm curious of this method...

For 2003 there was a script I uploaded to thread on here, but this should work well. http://realfantasy.wordpress.com/2007/04/20/55/

Once the MSI is opened in ORCA you can adjust all of it's settings. Basically look for anything that mentions 2000 and/or XP as a requirement/check and remove it.



Edit: A Basic how-to specific to Doom 3, but common sense will let you use it for other software. http://www.planetamd64.com/index.php?showtopic=26683&pid=303848&mode=threaded&show=&st=#entry303848