XP Pro 32bit Vs. 64bit ?

[Noahtuck]

Hey

Are there any real advantages using XP Pro 64bit over using 32bit ?

I assume there are but is there really that big of a difference for most programs ?

The reason i ask is it seem's some of my programs do not want to run or install under 64bit XP Pro.

Some will by changing the install compatibility & install to the x86 folder but some won't even install.

And seeing as i am going from 32bit to 64bit, but all my current programs run fine under 32bit i'm thinking about reinstalling the 32bit Xp Pro before i get to far into the setup of my new system.

But Jim44 stated in my other thread that Win XP Pro 32bit will NOT recognize more than 3gb of ramm ??

I sure do not want to lose a gb of ramm....

For people not familiar with my last thread i am running a AMD Athlon/Phenom 64 X2 7550 dual core 2.5ghz CPU with 4gb pf DDR2 dual channel ramm,

[jagabo]

The ability to use more than 4 GB of DRAM is the only real benefit to 64 bit XP. With 32 bit XP I get 3.5 GB of the 4 GB installed.

[G)-(OST]

The advantages are most apparent when you have a large amount of RAM installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more. Because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system can, a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently.

[ocgw]

There is almost no driver support for XP 64-bit, if you are going to go 64-bit it would make more sense to go with Vista, or Windows 7 unless you know in advance that you will have support for all your software/hardware

in my humble opinion

ocgw

peace

[neomaine]

Say what?

The advantages are most apparent when you have a large amount of RAM installed on your computer, typically 4 GB of RAM or more. Because a 64-bit operating system can handle large amounts of memory more efficiently than a 32-bit operating system can...

Most apparent? Typically? That's misleading at best. Its black and white. XP 32-bit can address up to 3.5gb. Period. XP 64-bit can address above that. Whether its 4gb or 400gb its a moot point. I'll give you partial credit for 'efficiently' (well, for memory below 3.5gb, because - again - 32-bit can't address any more ) since memory i/o is based on 64-bit reads vs 32-bit.

...a 64-bit system can be more responsive when running several programs at the same time and switching between them frequently.

You just made this up. This would only be true IF you are using more then physical memory and you're forcing the OS to start swapping. Adding more memory, a much higher ceiling if you're using 64-bit, is the only fix. You've got to be doing some heavy processing to be using that much memory. And if its because you've got multiple things going, then you need to review your work load. More than likely turning off things like indexing and other OS caching type 'enhancments' will take care of the problem.

---

In summary, running 64-bit will give you addressable memory above 3.5gb, gives you 64-bit i/o and gives you 64-bit instructions. You should see some improvement with high i/o (memory and/or disk) processes ... even for the 32-bit complied ones. I would look for 64-bit versions of your programs, dual boot, and run some benchmarks to know for certain.

I've been Vista 64-bit for a little over a year now and won't look back. The only thing I lost due to drivers was a 6yo scanner. It still works fine but I don't expect the vendor to ever write a new driver, simply no incentive for them. Well, one more thing is a minor PITA. Flashplayer doesn't have a 64-bit build yet so I have to use 32-bit IE. Woopdy frickin do...

[G)-(OST]

He asked for advantages, I don't think I said anything wrong, missleading or incorrect at all, if someone else can tell me where I am wrong, I will admit it, but I was quoting from my IT class something that was taught to us. So you must be Bill Gates, because your better than the books & teachers that I have. The quote that I quoted is from a sheet photo copied off a book, so in your words, I made it up, well here is another quote:

The main difference between a 32 bit and 64 is that 32 bit system has 4gb(gigabytes) of space for addressing means that the 32 bit system has a limit of 4GB RAM to process data where as the 64 bit operating system has 2^64 bits of space to address and supports 16 hexabytes of RAM to process data.
In simple words an operating system of 32 bit has a 4GB limit to process any data depending upon the sizes of files and RAM

Bag this one out too, because to me this means the same thing or better yet, rewrite the books your self.........Buffalo Bill

[redwudz]

I've still got a copy of XP 64 and gave up on it quite a while ago for lack of 64 bit driver and program support. The situation may have improved by now, but I'm not going to bother to use it. Since development of XP has pretty much stopped, I wouldn't expect too many more new 64 bit XP applications.

Vista 64 (And probably W7 64) seem to have much better 64 bit software support. And more Native 64 bit applications in the future should be written for them.

With a 64 bit OS, RAM above 4GB may be useful with some software. I don't know that multitasking would be much better, depends on the applications used. Native 64 bit software would help, though 32 bit will run fine most times. I would look around and see what's available before I would make the decision to go with a 64 bit OS. If the programs you primarily use are 64 bit, then that would help with the decision.

And this is just my opinion. I've used Vista 64, but for me, no real advantage at present.

[neomaine]

Then at best, your book/class is misleading or, at best, catering to very basic computer crowd. Maybe something you'd see in a high school night class open to the public. If you were quoting a book, you should have said so. I appologize for directing my comments at you.

I've been using 64-bit operating systems for over 20 years. This includes IRIX, a true 64-bit OS, and early HP-UX which actually cheated and called using two 32-bit simultaneous addressing 64-bit. It was funny how they could address two seperate 4gb chunks max with the largest piece being 1gb per process but still called it 64-bit. Oh well, got another 4gb to play with anyway. For some of the first 100gbs and terabyte commercial databases of the day that I was working with, it was a big deal.

I'm simply offering to Noahtuck and those who may read this afterwards clarification on differences. I don't want to (re)write that book. I'm already published writing a chapter on Informix backup and recovery for Unix systems about 10 years ago. Ok, its my only time ever, but I'm rather proud of it.

For your everyday person reading email, on the web, playing with pictures, these little quotes from that book may be enough. But for serious computing or people who really need larger than 4gb of memory the for desktop operating systems I find using Vista 64-bit works very well. (That was to back-up ocgw comment on xp vs vista 64-bit)

[G)-(OST]

Sorry, but I still don't know where I was wrong, or why you think that it is missleading, the teachers that are teaching us are not just from the cotton fields, they are from IT working backgrounds, some of which have been involved in designing lower power hogging (green) mother boards or main boards as they call them now correctly. So on Friday, when I get back to class, I will open up this thread for them, so they can answer the question, are the teachers class/books missleading us?

Sorry to the OP.

[racer-x]

As already stated the main difference is the ability to use more than 3.5 GB of RAM with XP x64 or Vista 64. There is still a real lack of native 64-bit programs to use. I have a dozen of them installed on my XP x64. Some provide tremendous gains in speed and efficiency and others, not so much.

The main reason you should go with a 64-bit OS, is if you have enough programs that will take advantage of that, otherwise it's a mute point. As for me, I'm very happy with XP x64. Vista 64 was fine too, except for all the added bloat.

[neomaine]

Ghost,

The ONLY place where a book/class would have such a generic statement would be a the beginning of a chapter where it would then go into more detail and explain. Otherwise, the statement/paragraph by itself is full of half-truths and misdirection. There was no context behind it which is what I'm trying to give.

If your instructor would like to discuss clarifications and specifics, I'd be more then willing to assist in another thread.

[Noahtuck]

Okay.

Hardware drivers are never a problem for me, not for long anyways, sometimes it takes a bit of work to find 1 or 2.

My main concern is running into programs that won't run or install under XP Pro 64bit as these are the first programs ihave tried installing.

The main issue i am having is this.

First off, i don't need to hear from all the norton bashers 8)


I use an older version of norton internet security pro 2007, when i try to install it by selecting to install it under "compatibility" using windows XP it starts, but then stops and say's it cannot install it.

If i try to install the latest norton 360 it says i need to have at least SP2, which i do
But it's SP2 64bit

If i don't change the properties to install under XP compatibility they just wont run at all.

Now i am trying a fix from the norton website so i will see how that goes.
EDIT: Nope, still say's i need SP2

If all else fails, what would be the best all in one antivirus and firewall that would work under XP Pro 64bit.

Price is not a consideration, i don't care if it cost's $100.00!!!

Man... i don't want to have to go to vista

[freebird73717]

Avast Home and Professional are both supposed to support windows xp 64. You could try the free home version to see if it works okay. Then you could decide if you want to purchase the pro version for the extra features.

http://www.avast.com/eng/whats_new_in_avast_v.html#5

The new avast! 4.5 Home/Professional now fully supports the 64-bit Windows platform (avast! Server Edition has been supporting Win64 (both AMD64 and IA64) platforms since version 4.1). ALWIL Software is anticipating a massive take-up of this platform as Windows XP 64-Bit Edition will support up to 32 GB of RAM and 16 TB of virtual memory, enabling applications to run faster when working with large data sets.

[neomaine]

Why not Vista64? I run with XP style menus, used tweakuac, turned off defender. Get the full 64bit environment with plenty of driver compatibility and 64 bit versions of the apps where available. Or, since its just a couple of months away, why not Win7-64? I use Avast for virus protection (has 64 bit version) with SpybotS&D for antimalware (and AdAware, though still useful, its getting less and less pertinent...for me). All free. If your willing to spend $100, spend it on a good router with firewall/nat/spi where it belongs.

All takes the place of your current setup for better protection, better performance and smaller protection footprint.

[Noahtuck]

@ freebird73717
Thanks, i will check it out.

@ neomaine
To the good router with all that built in, already covered 8)

I just like to use both for extra protection as both have features the other may not.

And i was thinking about trying out windows 7 when the full version is released, but it usually takes me a year or two before upgrading to a new OS for buggy reasons, & every time i have messed with VISTA i really did not like it.
I may end up trying the latest and seeing what kind of tweaks there are for it

Hell!! I did not upgrade to XP pro from win98 until XP was out for at least 2 years

I usually don't put much stock in what i read, but i did see kaspersky was rated 3rd, but actually the best overall.

The sucky thing is, i have installed these norton products on VISTA systems with no issues

[edDV]

I finally have a use for my full retail 64bit XP product. I will upgrade it to Win7 . Drivers and software support have been a problem to date.

[Noahtuck]

I finally have a use for my full retail 64bit XP product. I will upgrade it to Win7 . Drivers and software support have been a problem to date.

[Noahtuck]

And this is just my opinion. I've used Vista 64, but for me, no real advantage at present.

Yeah, everytime i worked on someone's PC with Vista, it seemed to be more of a PITA then anything else
And everyone i know sooner or later wanted Vista off and XP back on 8)

Okay

Seeing as i may end up using Vista

I was looking at these on newegg,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2060350368%201179223972&name=Ultimate

I am assuming that Vista 32bit is the same as XP Pro 32bit in regards to the ramm issue ?

Or will the 32bit version of Vista show the full amount of ramm as being 4gb's ?

I want to make sure i get the full use of all 4gb's of ramm & all my proggy's install and run, regardless of the OS.

Thanks for everyone's input as i am delving once again into a new OS & want to get the best and correct one.

[Jim44]

I am assuming that Vista 32bit is the same as XP Pro 32bit in regards to the ramm issue ?

Yes. It's relatively simple math:

2^32 = 4294967296 => 4GB

That's all the memory any 32-bit OS will be able to address. And, IIRC, the way Windows is structured, whatever video memory you have is part of that 4GB (whether on-board or a separate video card, I think). So if you have a video card with 512MB memory, you're now down to a usable 3.5GB of RAM.

[Edit: Oh, in your other thread I said "3.??GB RAM" - meaning somewhere between 3 and 4GB. Sorry if that wasn't clear; hopefully what I wrote above clears it up. Also, just FYI, I have 2GB RAM in my system, and at most I've seen used is 1.2GB at any one time. But I don't use Photoshop or other big-RAM progs. YMMV.]

[redwudz]

Just about any 32 bit OS, Vista or XP included, will show less than 4GB of RAM. Usually about ~3.75GB. If you have on-board video, then maybe a bit less as the video card may use a some of it. But for a common process like encoding, RAM usage is usually below 300MB, so I have never seen it as a problem. Vista uses a lot of RAM, mostly for the OS features, but 3-4GB is more than enough for any 32 bit OS.

I for one, prefer Vista over XP. I do run Vista Ultimate on four computers. My laptop uses Vista Home and two others use XP. All 32 bit.

[Jim44]

I was looking at these on newegg,

http://www.newegg.com/Product/ProductList.aspx?Submit=ENE&N=2060350368%201179223972&name=Ultimate

(Sorry for that additional post - I've been skimming (bad Jim ))

Have a look at the features available for the various Windows 7 versions, like here:
http://www.winsupersite.com/win7/win7_skus_compare.asp
or:
http://www.microsoft.com/windows/windows-7/compare-editions/default.aspx

Do you really *need* Ultimate? Just asking....I've opted for Home Premium (I have retail copies of WinXP, so if I need "XP Mode" I can just run a copy in a VM).

[JohnnyMalaria]

As a user and programmer of 32-bit and 64-bit Windows, here's my take:

1. 64-bit XP + Vista are more responsive that their 32-bit counterparts when running multiple 32-bit processes.
2. 64-bit allows you to run 64-bit apps that can handle larger structures. This is a great advantage for audio and photo apps. There is lesser benefit for video apps.
3. You get better security (for now)
4. They are the future
5. Unless you have funky hardware that doesn't have the necessary 64-bit drivers (more of a problem for XP than Vista), there's really no reason not to go 64. Installation problems may be due to some 32-bit apps using 16-bit installers.

[redwudz]

Do you really *need* Ultimate? Just asking....I've opted for Home Premium (I have retail copies of WinXP, so if I need "XP Mode" I can just run a copy in a VM).

Good point. Ultimate adds some security features and does have Dreamscapes if you like a moving background on your monitor, but other than that and a few other minor features, the regular Vista Home Premium is usually enough for most users. (Dreamscapes will run on Vista Premium or basic with a few mods. )

[G)-(OST]

Ghost,

The ONLY place where a book/class would have such a generic statement would be a the beginning of a chapter where it would then go into more detail and explain. Otherwise, the statement/paragraph by itself is full of half-truths and misdirection. There was no context behind it which is what I'm trying to give.

But the answer "is" generic, we all agree that it is a RAM issue (4GB+), including me, just as I originally stated, without being so anal about it.

[JohnnyMalaria]

Primarily, Ultimate is a fusion of Home Premium and Business plus some (useless?) extras such as stated by redwudz.

[Noahtuck]

And, IIRC, the way Windows is structured, whatever video memory you have is part of that 4GB (whether on-board or a separate video card, I think). So if you have a video card with 512MB memory, you're now down to a usable 3.5GB of RAM.

I may be wrong but...
When you use onboard video it usually sucks from your ramm & the whole point of using an add on video card is so it free's up your onboard ramm & uses the ramm on the video card.

It better because i threw in a BFG 1gb PCI-E video card!!!!
For playing games that is 8)

I just tried a couple of the latest games and that baby was SMOKIN'

And i'm not sure about the Vista versions yet, still investigating.
As far as windows 7 goes, i hate to jump into a NEW OS like that just because they always have bugs, then fixes, ect.

And i also will be using programs like photoshop, ect.

@ redwudz
I'd be perfectly happy with a 32bit OS it's just the fact windows only show's 3gb of ramm, if i knew for sure that all 4gb's is still used by various programs i would not care that windows reports it incorrectly.

I just don't want to jump into Vista 64bit and end up having the same problem i am now, with some programs not wanting to install.

When i have installed the same things on Vista PC's, it was the standard home version so i am sure they were also only 32bit.

I just want to be able to have use of all the ramm & install all the programs i currently use, i will be building one similar to mine for a friend (prior thread) and she uses a lot of hi end photo programs for photography.

(Sorry for that additional post - I've been skimming (bad Jim ))

Yes!!
Bad Jim!!!!


@ JohnnyMalaria
I have not had any issues with my hardware or drivers as of yet, pretty much just the program instillation aspect.

[edDV]

Primarily, Ultimate is a fusion of Home Premium and Business plus some (useless?) extras such as stated by redwudz.

I'm keeping my Vista Ultimate for connection to business servers and upgrading the XP's to Windows 7 Home Premium. The remaining advantage for Windows 7 "Professional" is XP emulation.

[Noahtuck]

Primarily, Ultimate is a fusion of Home Premium and Business plus some (useless?) extras such as stated by redwudz.

I'm keeping my Vista Ultimate for connection to business servers and upgrading the XP's to Windows 7 Home Premium. The remaining advantage for Windows 7 "Professional" is XP emulation.

I like that!!

[redwudz]

And i also will be using programs like photoshop, ect.

@ redwudz
[u]I'd be perfectly happy with a 32bit OS it's just the fact windows only show's 3gb of ramm, if i knew for sure that all 4gb's is still used by various programs i would not care that windows reports it incorrectly.

If you use Photoshop a lot, I would definitely consider a 64bit OS as PS can use a lot of RAM.

Vista seems to always 'show' the full amount of RAM installed, but the OS is setting aside some for it's own uses. My install says 4GB. OS usage varies, but .3GB - .7GB for the OS seems about average. A video card can use more, but that also improves video performance, so it's not that bad of a deal.

I also found this interesting statement at: http://www.xpfree.org/os_system_ram_limitations_guide.htm

By default in XP and Vista, each application is restricted to using 1GB of memory. For an application to utilise more than that, it must itself be large-address-aware, and the OS must have certain switches enabled.

[Noahtuck]

Vista seems to always 'show' the full amount of RAM installed, but the OS is setting aside some for it's own uses. My install says 4GB. OS usage varies, but .3GB - .7GB for the OS seems about average. A video card can use more, but that also improves video performance, so it's not that bad of a deal.

Even Vista 32bit ??
And i can see the OS setting aside some for itself.
That's pretty much a give in.

Oooooo!!!!!

Thanks for that link!!

I also saw this down the page,

For a large-address-aware application to gain access to more than 1GB of ram under Winxp 32-bit, you will need to have more than 2GB of RAM free, and also enable the /3GB switch in the boot.ini.
To learn how to do this, read the following link:
http://www.vfxpedia.com/index.php?title=FAQ/3GB_Switch

That link i posted from your link is very informative on how to do it using 2 boot.ini's

Once you have updated your boot.ini file accordingly and have saved the changes, simply restart your system for the changes to take affect. When your system reboots you will be given the option to choose either the standard Windows XP version or the 3GB switch enabled Windows XP version. If you choose the 3GB version and it fails to allow Windows to properly load, just restart your system and you will be given the two options once again, where you can then choose the standard Windows XP version to load. Either way, if it works or doesn't, you can then remove whatever line you don't need in the boot.ini file. Alternately, you may wish to leave both settings so that you can choose to boot without the 3GB switch should you ever have problems with drivers installed in the future. The boot loader will default to the first option listed in the file. So you may want to put the /3GB option first. You may also wish to lower the timeout value to something quicker so that you don't have to wait for 30 seconds or press enter with each boot.

Although seeing as this is a new machine and still pretty much on the initial install reformatting & reinstalling windows is not an issue with me.

I think i may have to try this tomorrow.

I get all warm and fuzzy inside messing with programs & making them do stuff they are not intended to do
MORE POWER!!!!

Will pretty much any OS make use of both core's seeing as i am also running a dual core CPU ?