XP Pro 32bit Vs. 64bit ?

[Skith]

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.

Definitely an advantage, assuming one has a processor that supports Windows 7's VM capabilities. There will be people who do have such processors, and without a doubt, there will be those who do not. I think it is something people should be aware of, regardless of their own personal upgrade habits.

[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.

Definitely an advantage, assuming one has a processor that supports Windows 7's VM capabilities. There will be people who do have such processors, and without a doubt, there will be those who do not. I think it is something people should be aware of, regardless of their own personal upgrade habits.

[ocgw]

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...

actually running large amounts of ram can be beneficial even when you aren't doing "heavy processing", I was backing up a BD to HDD and it stopped on the disc @ a dirty spot on the disc, I said to my self, "darn, i just wasted 20 minutes", I cleaned the disc and started over, the rip "ran" up to the point it left off because it was still in the system memory (buffered in DMA)

I have 8GB of ram and 4GB of ready boost memory

ocgw

peace

[JohnnyMalaria]

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.

They should have said 2GB, not 1GB. 64-bit apps have to be compiled with the right switches to make use of all that extra RAM, too. i.e., recompiling an existing 32-bit app as a 64-bit one doesn't mean jack without a whole lot of replumbing (unless you were prescient enough to write it with 64-bit in mind which isn't very common).

I wonder when 128-bit will come along...

[SingSing]

My XP PCs at work all have 3GB, because I was told beyong 3GB, that I need to put in a config script to use the memory beyond 3 GB.

[Phlexor]

Meh, I wouldn't worry about not using all of the 4GB. I have 2 sticks of 2GB in my machine, so that's 4GB. I also have a 8800GT 512MB so XP32 uses 3.25GB of it. I could have got 2x 1GB + 2x 512MB perhaps so I wouldn't be wasting RAM, but I figured that If I ever needed more than 4GB of ram after upgrading to a 64bit OS, at least I'd have the extra ram slots for doing so.

So what I'm saying is, with 3.25GB of ram, XP32 is never hungry for ram. I'd just relax and use an OS you like, XP, with a system that is well supported, 32bit. I too dislike Vista for its stupid problems (file copy bug being one of the main and most stupid bugs), so that is why I'm sticking with XP for the time being. Windows 7 doesn't seem too much different than Vista no matter what people say.

[neomaine]

actually running large amounts of ram can be beneficial even when you aren't doing "heavy processing", I was backing up a BD to HDD and it stopped on the disc @ a dirty spot on the disc, I said to my self, "darn, i just wasted 20 minutes", I cleaned the disc and started over, the rip "ran" up to the point it left off because it was still in the system memory (buffered in DMA)

I have 8GB of ram and 4GB of ready boost memory

ocgw

peace

So, backing up a BD disk isn't considered heavy processing to you? It might be easy for you, but the system is doing all the work. You found a process that needs/takes advantage of >4gb of memory. You just contradicted yourself.

This part is getting off topic so I'll cease my responses for this thread within a thread.

Noahtuck,

Put together the responses from myself and JohnnyM and you have the information (and clarifications...) you need for you to make a descision.

[ocgw]

actually running large amounts of ram can be beneficial even when you aren't doing "heavy processing", I was backing up a BD to HDD and it stopped on the disc @ a dirty spot on the disc, I said to my self, "darn, i just wasted 20 minutes", I cleaned the disc and started over, the rip "ran" up to the point it left off because it was still in the system memory (buffered in DMA)

I have 8GB of ram and 4GB of ready boost memory

ocgw

peace

So, backing up a BD disk isn't considered heavy processing to you? It might be easy for you, but the system is doing all the work. You found a process that needs/takes advantage of >4gb of memory. You just contradicted yourself.

This part is getting off topic so I'll cease my responses for this thread within a thread.

Noahtuck,

Put together the responses from myself and JohnnyM and you have the information (and clarifications...) you need for you to make a descision.

Um...."heavy processing" is a heavy cpu work load (high cpu usage) done by the processor, dma (direct memory access) on the other hand is a simple data transfer that does not require large amounts of system memory or prodigeous processing power (2-5% cpu usage typically) but can benefit from large amounts of system memory

I in no way contradicted myself, before you go knocking ppls advice, and patting yourself on the back go take a college computer hardware class..........like i did, @ least then you will understand basic PC terms and architecture

ocgw

peace

[Nelson37]

Given the extremely low probability that you will ever actually use more than 3.5-ish GB of RAM, and the extremely high probability that some drivers or software just will not work on XP 64-bit, I have to ask "just what is the goal of the operation?"

I do not get the fixation on having the full 4 gb. At the cost of using XP 64, my answer is "no way in hell". I'd switch to Vista first.

My reasons are not speculative or academic. I have seen multiple instances of bad or totally unavailable drivers and software incompatibilities which render XP 64 non-usable. It's basically a one-trick pony, if you have a particular app which supports it, and a PC built with 64-bit in mind, and the workstation does not need to run any other software, then great. For a general-use PC, particularly one with any unusual or uncommon hardware not chosen specifically for XP-64 compatibility, just make sure you have a brick wall handy to bash your head into.

I do not see one or two or identical machines and conclude "this or that may, or may not, happen", I see dozens in a variety of configurations in addition to reading lots of case studies and spending hours on the phone with tech support departments and I say "There is a distinct trend here."

If Linux would be a reasonable alternative for you, and I have no idea of its memory handling, then why not try that? If Linux just would not be suitable, take most of those reasons and apply them to XP 64.

For me, neither is a suitable OS because it just won't do some of the things I want my OS to do. Reporting the full amount of installed RAM is not even on the list.

[Noahtuck]

Given the extremely low probability that you will ever actually use more than 3.5-ish GB of RAM, and the extremely high probability that some drivers or software just will not work on XP 64-bit, I have to ask "just what is the goal of the operation?"

The goal is to stay on XP and get use of the full 4gb of ramm, heck i see machines running up to 16gb of ramm
But i figure if XP 64 is only reporting 3gb of ramm, it's only seeing 3gb of ramm and is not utilizing that missing 1gb of ramm for whatever reason the ramm is used for.

I do not get the fixation on having the full 4 gb. At the cost of using XP 64, my answer is "no way in hell". I'd switch to Vista first.

Because i want to get full use of all my ramm for whatever reason, not 3/4ths of it, & staying on XP Pro.
I probably am moving to Vista.
I am working no it now.

If Linux would be a reasonable alternative for you, and I have no idea of its memory handling, then why not try that? If Linux just would not be suitable, take most of those reasons and apply them to XP 64.

I have actually considered linux in the past, i actually have a couple versions but i just never messed with it.
I remember i picked up one version that even looks a lot like windows.
Maybe i will install it on one of my extra machines now just to play with it.

For me, neither is a suitable OS because it just won't do some of the things I want my OS to do. Reporting the full amount of installed RAM is not even on the list.

Back to my earlier point, if it's not reporting all the ramm it's probably not seeing it and or utilizing it.
So yes, that is an issue for me & on the list 8)
And from some time back, i have yet to really find anything Vista can do that i would need, as i have never had a problem doing anything i needed on XP.

But it does look like Vista it will be!!
At least it's been out for awhile and they have released a couple of service packs.
Hell, it took me a long time to move to XP Pro from Windows 98
Let them work most of the crap out first, i went to 98SE for about a week & went back to the standard 98.

If memory serves me, finally moving to XP was because of moving into larger HDD's but it could have been another reason, that was a long time ago 8)

[jagabo]

I do not get the fixation on having the full 4 gb.

It's probably the same fixation with not seeing letterbox or pillarbox bars on the TV.

[Noahtuck]

I do not get the fixation on having the full 4 gb.

It's probably the same fixation with not seeing letterbox or pillarbox bars on the TV.

Yeah... it's kind of like having a V8 but only putting in 6 spark plugs

[ocgw]

I do not get the fixation on having the full 4 gb.

It's probably the same fixation with not seeing letterbox or pillarbox bars on the TV.

Yeah... it's kind of like having a V8 but only putting in 6 spark plugs

maybe goal is the wrong word, I like "end", a movie authored and burned to disc is an end, 4GB of memory may be a means to that end

ocgw

peace

[Noahtuck]

Well the actual issue now is the fact that i am having problems with installing a couple of diff. programs in Xp Pro 64bit.
Because XP Pro 64bit does recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

And 32bit XP Pro does not recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

That's why i am now probably just jumping to Vista premium or Ultimate, either 32bit or 64bit.

[edDV]

Well the actual issue now is the fact that i am having problems with installing a couple of diff. programs in Xp Pro 64bit.
Because XP Pro 64bit does recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

And 32bit XP Pro does not recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

That's why i am now probably just jumping to Vista premium or Ultimate, either 32bit or 64bit.

Jump to the Win 7 RC (32 or 64bit) for a free test.

[Noahtuck]

Well the actual issue now is the fact that i am having problems with installing a couple of diff. programs in Xp Pro 64bit.
Because XP Pro 64bit does recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

And 32bit XP Pro does not recognize the full 4gb's of ramm.

That's why i am now probably just jumping to Vista premium or Ultimate, either 32bit or 64bit.

Jump to the Win 7 RC (32 or 64bit) for a free test.

Yeah i was thinking of trying that also.
I just hate jumping into a new OS right away cause they always screw something up

And this system is still fresh with just the bare basics so trying it would not be a hassle.
I did not want to have to reinstall everything until i got the OS thing sorted out.

I have even heard/read quite a few things about Vista still being whack on SP1, until SP2 was released.

[edDV]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

[Noahtuck]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

Yep...
Ya gotta love a monopoly

[edDV]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

Yep...
Ya gotta love a monopoly

Not so much Microsoft's fault. Developers used 64bit XP as a test. They jumped over 64 bit XP for 64 bit Vista.

[Noahtuck]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

Yep...
Ya gotta love a monopoly

Not so much Microsoft's fault. Developers used 64bit XP as a test. They jumped over 64 bit XP for 64 bit Vista.

Yeah i was referring more to M$'s monopoly on OS's.
It's not like there are a lot of other OS's out there that the majority of the general public use, which tends to make developers make things for the mostly used OS.
So yeah, in a way it is M$'s fault
They all knew M$ was dropping XP because of the release of Vista and they went with the flow.

Remember when one day XP just kind of vanished and all there was available on new PC's was Vista

[edDV]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

Yep...
Ya gotta love a monopoly

Not so much Microsoft's fault. Developers used 64bit XP as a test. They jumped over 64 bit XP for 64 bit Vista.

Yeah i was referring more to M$'s monopoly on OS's.
It's not like there are a lot of other OS's out there that the majority of the general public use, which tends to make developers make things for the mostly used OS.
So yeah, in a way it is M$'s fault
They all knew M$ was dropping XP because of the release of Vista and they went with the flow.

Remember when one day XP just kind of vanished and all there was available on new PC's was Vista

So do you blame the third party developers? At that time they had almost written off the Mac and Linux seemed too challenging to their customers. They needed to get on with Vista 32 and then Vista 64.

[Noahtuck]

Problem is 64bit XP was never supported by third party software or hardware drivers. They all knew Vista was coming and it was different.

Yep...
Ya gotta love a monopoly

Not so much Microsoft's fault. Developers used 64bit XP as a test. They jumped over 64 bit XP for 64 bit Vista.

Yeah i was referring more to M$'s monopoly on OS's.
It's not like there are a lot of other OS's out there that the majority of the general public use, which tends to make developers make things for the mostly used OS.
So yeah, in a way it is M$'s fault
They all knew M$ was dropping XP because of the release of Vista and they went with the flow.

Remember when one day XP just kind of vanished and all there was available on new PC's was Vista

So do you blame the third party developers? At that time they had almost written off the Mac and Linux seemed too challenging to their customers. They needed to get on with Vista 32 and then Vista 64.

No, i don't blame them
They just did the smart thing & followed the rest of the herd & the $$$ 8)

[JohnnyMalaria]

Also bear in mind that 64-bit XP isn't (wasn't?) just a 64-bit recompile of the 32-bit XP retail OS. Instead, it was derived from the 64-bit *server* which is why some of the 32-bit OS features don't exist as indeed they don't for Vista. 64-bit XP was out there in 2003 way before 64-bit processors started to become mainstream. So, minimal user base, minimal interest by developers.

[ocgw]

Also bear in mind that 64-bit XP isn't (wasn't?) just a 64-bit recompile of the 32-bit XP retail OS. Instead, it was derived from the 64-bit *server* which is why some of the 32-bit OS features don't exist as indeed they don't for Vista. 64-bit XP was out there in 2003 way before 64-bit processors started to become mainstream. So, minimal user base, minimal interest by developers.

Yeah, Microsoft Server 2003 to be exact

[neomaine]

actually running large amounts of ram can be beneficial even when you aren't doing "heavy processing", I was backing up a BD to HDD and it stopped on the disc @ a dirty spot on the disc, I said to my self, "darn, i just wasted 20 minutes", I cleaned the disc and started over, the rip "ran" up to the point it left off because it was still in the system memory (buffered in DMA)

I have 8GB of ram and 4GB of ready boost memory

ocgw

peace

So, backing up a BD disk isn't considered heavy processing to you? It might be easy for you, but the system is doing all the work. You found a process that needs/takes advantage of >4gb of memory. You just contradicted yourself.

This part is getting off topic so I'll cease my responses for this thread within a thread.

Noahtuck,

Put together the responses from myself and JohnnyM and you have the information (and clarifications...) you need for you to make a decision.

Um...."heavy processing" is a heavy cpu work load (high cpu usage) done by the processor, dma (direct memory access) on the other hand is a simple data transfer that does not require large amounts of system memory or prodigeous processing power (2-5% cpu usage typically) but can benefit from large amounts of system memory

I in no way contradicted myself, before you go knocking ppls advice, and patting yourself on the back go take a college computer hardware class..........like i did, @ least then you will understand basic PC terms and architecture

ocgw

peace

1 - Heavy processing could be any of the three major facets of computing: CPU, I/O or memory (I include network with i/o here...). So, from my standpoint if a process, or processes, needs > 4gb then you've got something with heavy processing. You simply narrowed the definition to try make your point. But...

2 - ...you step on yourself again: "... a simple data transfer that does not require large amounts of system memory.... but can benefit from large amounts of system memory.

3 - I'm only providing clarity and trying to help out, not necessarily knocking peoples advice. If you wish to provide contradictory advice to mine, feel free. If, however, I in turn contradict yours that's just part of a forum. I come here to learn and provide advice when I can.

4 - Take a college computer class? Hmmm. I soldered together my first two computers and have been building my own for the past 25 years. I've been in the IT industry in one form or another (programmer, network engineer, developer, management and now a DBA) ever since. I been a consultant for a few of those years (missing too much time with the kids, thus my current employment...) rebuilding development environments for the likes of Fortune 500 companies and security firms making them (the development environments) more efficient and productive. I'm currently enjoying being a senior DBA in Teradata and SQL Server at a leading global insurance company.

You want me to take a college computer class?

Back on topic...

Noahtuck,

Looks like you’re circling back to the inevitable. Again, I know you’re balking at Vista64 but it really isn’t that bad. I still think you should jump there to enjoy your extra memory. Then when Win7 comes out, which is really Vista 2.0, you can run with that. Vista actually been out for a couple of years and is now at SP2. You shouldn't see much for issues.

[ocgw]

actually running large amounts of ram can be beneficial even when you aren't doing "heavy processing", I was backing up a BD to HDD and it stopped on the disc @ a dirty spot on the disc, I said to my self, "darn, i just wasted 20 minutes", I cleaned the disc and started over, the rip "ran" up to the point it left off because it was still in the system memory (buffered in DMA)

I have 8GB of ram and 4GB of ready boost memory

ocgw

peace

So, backing up a BD disk isn't considered heavy processing to you? It might be easy for you, but the system is doing all the work. You found a process that needs/takes advantage of >4gb of memory. You just contradicted yourself.

This part is getting off topic so I'll cease my responses for this thread within a thread.

Noahtuck,

Put together the responses from myself and JohnnyM and you have the information (and clarifications...) you need for you to make a decision.

Um...."heavy processing" is a heavy cpu work load (high cpu usage) done by the processor, dma (direct memory access) on the other hand is a simple data transfer that does not require large amounts of system memory or prodigeous processing power (2-5% cpu usage typically) but can benefit from large amounts of system memory

I in no way contradicted myself, before you go knocking ppls advice, and patting yourself on the back go take a college computer hardware class..........like i did, @ least then you will understand basic PC terms and architecture

ocgw

peace

1 - Heavy processing could be any of the three major facets of computing: CPU, I/O or memory (I include network with i/o here...). So, from my standpoint if a process, or processes, needs > 4gb then you've got something with heavy processing. You simply narrowed the definition to try make your point. But...

2 - ...you step on yourself again: "... a simple data transfer that does not require large amounts of system memory.... but can benefit from large amounts of system memory.

3 - I'm only providing clarity and trying to help out, not necessarily knocking peoples advice. If you wish to provide contradictory advice to mine, feel free. If, however, I in turn contradict yours that's just part of a forum. I come here to learn and provide advice when I can.

4 - Take a college computer class? Hmmm. I soldered together my first two computers and have been building my own for the past 25 years. I've been in the IT industry in one form or another (programmer, network engineer, developer, management and now a DBA) ever since. I been a consultant for a few of those years (missing too much time with the kids, thus my current employment...) rebuilding development environments for the likes of Fortune 500 companies and security firms making them (the development environments) more efficient and productive. I'm currently enjoying being a senior DBA in Teradata and SQL Server at a leading global insurance company.

You want me to take a college computer class?

Back on topic...

Noahtuck,

Looks like you’re circling back to the inevitable. Again, I know you’re balking at Vista64 but it really isn’t that bad. I still think you should jump there to enjoy your extra memory. Then when Win7 comes out, which is really Vista 2.0, you can run with that. Vista actually been out for a couple of years and is now at SP2. You shouldn't see much for issues.

Who do you think you are bull chiittin' kid?, "processing", is done by the "processor"

"your stand point", who the fvck are you?

learn the standard terminology that all IT professionals use

Go to school

I have 15 years in General Motors Engineering World Headquarters, Warren Michigan, Chevorlet Corporate Office, I have 2 degrees and 2 journeyman's cards and I go back to school every few years (it's called "life long learning", most professionals in the "big leagues" do it)

raymond.bellamy@gm.com

I have taken classes in pipefitting, pneumatics, hydraulics, heating and cooling, machining, welding, computer hardware, engines, transmisions, steering and suspension, algebra, geometry, triginometry, blue print reading, drafting, welding, DC electrical, AC electrical, starting and charging systems, wheel alignment, Tech II, Electronic diagnostics, auto AC, Metalurgy....etc....

but you can't be bothered to take 1 class LOL

I figured you for a high school dropout "bigshot" lmao

ocgw

peace

[ron spencer]

I will try the 3gb switch too thanks for links

[jagabo]

But who's got the bigger dick?

[ocgw]

dbl post

[neomaine]

Not bull***ing anyone. I've taken those classes and found how basic and general they were once I had to apply those skills in the real world. Now that my son is going a bachelors in Computer Science and Networking, I'm still seeing the same type of things. Writing and speaking in general and basic terms to get them started.

Did I learn something from my computer classes back then? Absolutely. But now I'm in the point in my career where I realize how basic they were to my profession. Heck, I still work with people who can list off just as many skills you have and have just as much experience but still call their computer 'the hard drive'. Makes no difference. I translate what they say into what the real problem is and help accordingly. I take their code, figure the whether the bottleneck is CPU, memory, i/o, network or just bad code - analyze and adjust accordingly.

As I said before, sounds like for me, heavy processing encompasses more areas than what you define it as. Taking a college computer class at this point would be like you taking a 101 in electronics or engineering. Just not worth the effort since you've moved beyond it and now have real world experience behind you. Do I continue to take classes, go to seminars and user group conferences to keep up and get other certifications? Absolutely...

I'm going to pass this off as simple semantics with two different people seeing the same problem from two different backgrounds. I really don't mean any ill will...