Do you have a 64 bit processor?

[yoda313]

I don't. I have a standard celeron 2.66ghz emachine. I'll probably upgrade to a 64bit intel VISTA pc next year. I'll swap most of my stuff like my usb soundblaster and my hdtv card. I like what I'm hearing about those CORE DUO intel chips. Those are 64bit right?

[Marty2003]

I have a 64-bit processor, but I haven't made use of the 64-bit part. In my mind it's just not worth it. First you have to pay to get a 64-bit version of your OS. Then you have to find drivers for all your devices. Then you have to find software that will take advantage of 64-bit instructions. I'm not even sure if there is a significant performance increase if you manage to do all this.

I tried out XP x64 for a short while and I couldn't find drivers for either of my TV Tuners, my webcam, or my dial-up modem(although I never use it anymore). For me it just wan't worth the trouble.

[ROF]

Yes. I personally use one Intel and three AMD 64 bit chips. Can't really vote on this thread because there is no option for both.

[yoda313]

Well there is other

[Dv8ted2]

Yes, I have an Athlon 64 3200+

[Wile_E]

I have a 64-bit processor, but I haven't made use of the 64-bit part.

Same here. My last three processors were AMD 64-bit. But I use WinXP Pro 32-bit, because there are no 64-bit drivers available for my 35mm scanner and some other devices. There probably will never be 64-bit drivers for these devices. So I'm stuck with 32-bit O/S until MS develops a workaround. If Vista won't allow 32-bit drivers, I'll be stuck with XP.

[redwudz]

I have three different AMD versions of 64 bit CPUs. A couple of Atlhlons, one running XP64. A couple of Semprons, and one AM2. The others are running XP32.

There is some performance increase with the XP64 OS, but you need to have 64bit aware programs to make the most of it. Drivers were a pain, but most all drivers necessary should be available by now.

A good site for XP64 for compatibility is: http://www.ukgamer.com/index.php4?action=compat

Is the XP64 OS worth it? Just my opinion, but generally, probably not, at least from my experiences with it.
I was expecting to see some big differences between it and the XP32 OS, but with the driver issues and the lack of 64 bit programs, I'm not impressed. But I'm not giving up with it. Now that most major programs have software that can work with it, it should improve.

But I do prefer the 64bit CPUs, I haven't bought a 32bit CPU in more than a year. They multitask a lot better and some newer types, like the AM2 use DDR2 memory, which is a big improvement. They also generally run cooler and the motherboards seem to have more features on board.

I would recommend the 64bit CPUs, and pass on XP64, unless you have a specific purpose for it. JMO.

[yoda313]

I would recommend the 64bit CPUs, and pass on XP64, unless you have a specific purpose for it. JMO.

I would imagine that if you bought a VISTA pc next year and had recent accessories for it you shouldn't have the same issues since VISTA will be 64bit from the ground up. Hopefully that would eliminate some of those issues.

[Dv8ted2]

I would recommend the 64bit CPUs, and pass on XP64, unless you have a specific purpose for it. JMO.

I would imagine that if you bought a VISTA pc next year and had recent accessories for it you shouldn't have the same issues since VISTA will be 64bit from the ground up. Hopefully that would eliminate some of those issues.

Vista will also have 32 bit versions.

[yoda313]

Yeah isn't VISTA going to have like 6 different versions???

I can just imagine the unwitting nontech shopper going to a salesperson - I want a new computer with that Vista thing.

salesperson - so which of the 6 do you want?

customer - duh the one I can surf the internet on

[Cobra]

AMD64 right now, but when I get some money I'm getting a Core 2 Duo!

[Bodyslide]

I have an AMD Opteron 144...

[waheed]

I have a AMD64 3500+, but not really taken any advantage of the 64 bit.

[budz]

I have a AMD64 3200+ but I don't have any 64 bit software to make use of it.

[painkiller]

I have 3 AMD64 3200+ processors.

64 bit OS. Not yet.

Planning to get SUSE Linux 64-bit & WinXP64, though.

The DVICO Fusion HDTV RT 5 Gold card now has 64-bit driver for WinXP64 - so I am going to be very interested in that shortly.

[teegee420]

I have a dual-core AMD 64 4200+. No XP 64, but it purrs like a kitten.

[redwudz]

Linux 64-bit, now that's an interesting idea. 8) What other alternative OS's are out there with 64bit capability? Drivers may be a problem, though.

It's also interesting that most of us that have 64bit CPUs don't use a 64bit OS. I have all my needed drivers installed, but I haven't seen much of a difference between XP64 performance and XP32 performance. But I have few programs presently that are 64 bit native.

[waheed]

I wonder how many of those who have 64 bit CPUs will go for the 64 bit Vista rather than the 32 bit Vista (if they choose to upgrade to Vista that is).

[painkiller]

Redwudz (and anyone else interested):

Just so you know, SUSE Linux version 10 is a free download.
If you are willing to go for it.
It has a 32-bit version and 64-bit version.
The ISO distros are for 5 cds (pretty full, each disk). So it will take a while to d/l even for DSL.

After that, the install includes the front-end gui (windows-like) and also includes OpenOffice (I think that's its name, which is the open/free counterpart to MS Office).


booyah!

[ROF]

Planning to get SUSE Linux 64-bit & WinXP64, though.

The DVICO Fusion HDTV RT 5 Gold card now has 64-bit driver for WinXP64 - so I am going to be very interested in that shortly.

I would personally wait for Vista instead of opting for the intermediate solution(winXP64). I wouldn't want to be caught in the same position those who bought into the promises of WinME(another intermediate OS).

[rallynavvie]

For encoding and video work I actually found my 3.06 Prestonias to work better than my 64-bit 3.2 Noconas. And the Prestonias have the 533 FSB to the Noconas' 800. In all respects on paper the newer one should be faster but it isn't. And since there isn't a solid 64-bit Windows client yet the 3.2 machine stays a file server.

I did toy with a 64-bit variant of FC on them when I first put together the DN800 just so I could say I utilized the EM64T instruction set

[isogonic]

AMD Athlon64 3000+ socket 754

http://www.mandriva.com/en/download/free

[akrako1]

AMD Athlon64 3200+ socket 754
1GB Dual-Channel 400Mhz
running XP 64-bit

Only bad conflict was my old-as-sh*t Visioneer Flatbed Scanner... couldn't find a compatible driver.. so moved it to my W2K box...

as for XP x64, i've converted to running the following applications in 64 bit: Virus Protection, Defragger (Diskkeeper), Virtualdub, and a few game demos (Dreadnaught 64-bit is sweet).

You'll NEED all 64-bit Drivers, Virus protection, and Defraggers.

Don't have any problem running my DVD and Video apps in x64 (DVDShrink. Decryptor, AnyDVD, TMPGEnc suite)

[XL3/\/7]

I have an AMD 3500+ and I'm running XP x64 with no issues... I find the PC running smoother than before with fewer crashes...

[akrako1]

I've also noticed fewer crashes, at least compared to the Win 2K Pro SP2 I was running...

[Morse2]

Hi Redwudz;

>>>...Linux 64-bit, now that's an interesting idea. cool.gif What other alternative OS's are out there with 64bit capability? Drivers may be a problem, though...<<<

I've had some very positive experiences with OpenSuse 10.1 AMD_64 edition lately. To get full multimedia use (MP3 and DVD playback) you'll have to install some optional RPM's from the packman site - google "JEM hacking suse 10.1" and you'll find a nice article that spells it all out very nicely.

64 bit OpenSuse 10.1 will drive a Leadtek PVR2000 if you tell it to use the tuner from the Leadtek TV2000Expert (same card w/o hardware mpeg encoding). That's the system running on my portable PC (3700+ AMD Sandy w/2GB ram and 4x 320GB drives in a QPack case). Still grappling with getting a 64 bit version of MythTV to run satisfactorily for easily capturing to HDD, but at least packman has RPM's that will install cleanly now. Going to try a subversion install from source code on MythTV as soon as time permits.

If you decide to try the OpenSuse route, a couple of provisos - 1. the install CD's partitioner didn't much care for repartitioning a NTFS formatted 320 GB drive so if you're dual booting with Windows on a big drive use Partition Magic 7.0 or some more modern program to set up a spot to which linux may install. 2. have fast internet access available during the install; it makes life MUCH easier if you install the updates during the initial install. 3. Dial up is a no-no for installing RPM's via Yast - it takes WAY too long....

That said, I really like OpenSuse 10.1 - it's even more stable than x64 Pro (which itself is more stable than 32 bit XP Pro) and at least with my hardware has not had any deal-breaker lack of device support.

All the best,
Morse

[redwudz]

Thanks, Morse2, I'm thinking of experimenting with OpenSuse 10.1 AMD_64 edition on a spare AMD Sempron 64 754 socket computer I have. I've tried a few versions of Linux in the past.

[TheFamilyMan]

I have a AMD64 X2 4200+, overclocked to 2.42, running 32 bit XP home edition. Rippin' great CPU, only wish I'd waited until now to make the new computer plunge. AMD CPU prices are currently in a tail spin over the release of Intel core duo. Raw performance wise, 64 OS vs. 32 OS is a wash. What 64 bit OS gives you: an enormous program address space, and enormous file and file system sizes (at least for linux, don't know about windows), which for most apps aren't really necessary. As for 64 bit linux, I've got a fedora64 (beta for redhat) install waiting for me to load onto a spare drive. Slight thread jack here: Any reason why I should consider suse64 instead? (please, no wars over this).

[Sam Ontario]

No 64-bit software applications for me, I stay with 32-bit. I will buy 64 bit cpu with 64 bit OS and 64 bit software only when they are as abundantly available together, as the 32-bit ones, we have now.

[akrako1]

Honestly, If you've got the hardware, I don't see a reason not to be running XP x64. XP 64 does seem more stable then XP 32. Most, if not all of the programs you'll NEED written for x64 are all available, most free..

1. Virus protection: Avast Antivirus. x64 compatible, very good, and Free!
http://www.avast.com/

2. Disk Defragmentor: of course XP comes with it's built in defragger, adequate... but I shelled out for Diskeeper x64. Damn nice.

3. drivers. you just purchased a x64 motherboard, it will include all the drivers for XP 64. I found 64-bit drivers for all my hardware (except the scanner): my old Lexmark printer, and for my older M-Audio Delta 44 audio card. Some are 'experimental' or 'beta' x64 drivers, but they work.

4. Internet: XP 64 comes with a 64-bit IE, and a 32-bit IE... screw them both and download the free 64-bit version of Firefox - Deer Park Alpha 2. Free and sweet! With the more efficient memory usage, I've have dozens of tabs open with seemless tabbing around... You will have some problems with plug-ins not working, so I installed Firefox x32 as well...

The short of it, if you've got the hardware, run a 64-bit OS. You should be able to find everything you'll need new in x64. Windows forces you to use explorer for everything (browsing you files, etc), at least it'll be running as 64-bit, and using your memory more efficiently. And if you're linux enclined, why wouldn't you want to run a fully native 64-bit OS?