Welcome Guest.   Make a donation to an author on the site October 20, 2014, 10:46:18 PM  *

Please login or register.
Or did you miss your validation email?


Login with username and password (forgot your password?)
Why not become a lifetime supporting member of the site with a one-time donation of any amount? Your donation entitles you to a ton of additional benefits, including access to exclusive discounts and downloads, the ability to enter monthly free software drawings, and a single non-expiring license key for all of our programs.


You must sign up here before you can post and access some areas of the site. Registration is totally free and confidential.
 
Read the full one-year retrospective report on DonationCoder.com.
   
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
Author Topic: does win XP 64-bit suck?  (Read 8312 times)
urlwolf
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,784



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« on: June 12, 2008, 04:18:40 AM »

I'm moving to a machine with 8gb of RAM.
I'll need a 64-bit OS to address all that memory.

I think I'll stick to linux, but, just in case...
does win XP 64-bit suck?

It'll probably save some time (hundreds of hours smiley ) to use win XP, at least at the beginning, and run linux on top of it with andlinux. Big problem: andlinux uses only one core.
Logged
jgpaiva
Global Moderator
*****
Posts: 4,710



Artificial Idiocy

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #1 on: June 12, 2008, 04:30:33 AM »

Or you could go for Vista 64 smiley

I've been using it in my Core Duo2 laptop with 4GB of ram without having any problem for 3 months now.
Logged

EĆ³in
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,400


O'Callaghan

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #2 on: June 12, 2008, 04:45:57 AM »

It's doesn't suck one bit, I've been using it as my primary OS for the best part of three years now. I do tend to dual boot with regular XP for games though. It's not that they don't work with XP x64 just that I've always like to keep my game OS and work/development OS separate.
Logged

Interviewer: Is there anything you don't like?
Bjarne Stroustrup: Marketing hype as a substitute for technical argument. Thoughtless adherence to dogma. Pride in ignorance.
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #3 on: June 12, 2008, 08:24:35 AM »

I've been using XP64 for a while (at least since January... perhaps longer?) and I don't think it sucks.

Most stuff works just fine, with the noticeable exception of anything 16-bit - DOS as well as win16 programs. This does mean you'll have problems installing some old apps; even if the apps themselves are 32bit, some of the older installers are 16bit.

There can also be problems with some older games, relying on 32bit drivers for their copy protection mechanism. The solution is to find a crack somewhere, makes the games run better as well. I don't see this as unethical when you own the game.

Most 32bit stuff runs at the same speed as under 32bit XP. A few things might run a bit faster, if they spend a lot of time doing in OS or driver code. A few things run slower - 32bit FoxIt Reader, for instance, is massively slow at rendering pages (only shows with very complex PDFs though), but Sumatra  runs just fine.

Shell extensions can be a problem - not everybody knows how to compile their stuff for 64bit. This can be solved by using a 32bit explorer replacement like xplorer2, though.
Logged

- carpe noctem
mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,571



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #4 on: June 12, 2008, 08:37:25 AM »

I've been using winX64 for several months. some impressions:

1) WinXp service packs do not get released for x64, at least not on any human timescale (SP3 is not available to x64 users).  Not cool.
2) Mostly everything runs fine.
3) As f0dder points out, explorer shell extensions mostly do not exist for x64 -- so if you have a favorite shell extension (like copy folder path to clipboard, system clock) you may be out of luck, or at least severely restricted in your options.  If you have old hardware (scanners) you might experience trouble.
4) My experience has been a few more random application crashes that i suspect are due to x64, but nothing really major.
5) Is it worth it? I'd think twice about doing it again -- i notice no difference over my normal xp install so i don't really see much gain.  Unless you *really* want to be able to access that extra memory, give it a skip.  But if you can't bear to live without full access to the memory, win x64 runs fine and is stable.
Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #5 on: June 12, 2008, 09:04:43 AM »

Addressing a few of mouser's points:
1) XP64 is based on the win2k3 server codebase, so service packs follow that, not XP32.
3) stop using explorer, grab a superior (and 32bit) explorer replacement tongue. Old hardware can be a problem, though.
4) haven't seen any random crashes on XP64 that I didn't have on XP32...
5) if you have 4gig or more memory, it's worth it. Most people can stick with XP32 without problems though, XP64 doesn't offer that much unless you have specific needs.

Oh, one extra thing: most malware is pretty system-specific, and targets 32bit windows... 64bit is slightly safer smiley
Logged

- carpe noctem
kartal
Supporting Member
**
Posts: 1,529


View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #6 on: June 12, 2008, 09:50:44 AM »

I use 64bit xp, and it rocks in my opinion. Moving to 64bit was smartest desicion I have made some months ago. ( I have 8gb with quad core).

As others pointed out using 32 bit explorer replacement will resolve most of your pains. I use  FreeCommander.
Logged
Deozaan
Charter Member
***
Posts: 6,415



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #7 on: June 15, 2008, 11:08:05 AM »

I got my 64-bit CPU in 2006 and happily installed Windows XP 64bit edition. Within a day or two I was back to XP 32bit edition because there were no drivers for my video card and other hardware, and most of my favorite programs didn't work or had problems.

So I've been wary of installing a 64-bit OS ever since. However, I think that now there are enough 64bit computers out there that companies have realized the importance of making 64-bit compatible software/drivers. You may have to give up a couple of your old favorites, or just upgrade to a newer version. I think if/when I go to a 64-bit OS I'd probably go with Vista.
Logged

urlwolf
Charter Member
***
Posts: 1,784



see users location on a map View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #8 on: December 05, 2008, 11:24:21 AM »

Anyone has any experience on windows Server 2008? And what prices are we talking about here?
Logged
Edvard
Coding Snacks Author
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 2,582



View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #9 on: December 05, 2008, 12:13:59 PM »

@f0dder: Why the 32-bit version? He recently released a 64-bit version that's a free upgrade:
http://www.zabkat.com/x2-64bit.htm
Logged

All children left unattended will be given a mocha and a puppy.
jmj
Charter Member
***
Posts: 42


Author of Locate32

View Profile WWW Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #10 on: December 05, 2008, 02:56:06 PM »

maybe because f0dder wrote that message on June.
Logged
f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #11 on: December 05, 2008, 10:28:21 PM »

maybe because f0dder wrote that message on June.
@f0dder: Why the 32-bit version? He recently released a 64-bit version that's a free upgrade:
http://www.zabkat.com/x2-64bit.htm
The point was that a whole bunch of shell extensions haven't been released in 64bit versions yet. Using the 32bit version of xplorer2 lets you use 32bit shell extensions on a 64bit windows smiley

I still use the 32bit x^2, even though I helped beta-test the 64bit version a bit - don't see the need for a 64bit version (apart from shell extensions) to be honest. I wish 32bit x^2 would call Wow64DisableWow64FsRedirection, though smiley
Logged

- carpe noctem
Edvard
Coding Snacks Author
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 2,582



View Profile Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #12 on: December 08, 2008, 10:49:39 AM »

Quote
The point was that a whole bunch of shell extensions haven't been released in 64bit versions yet. Using the 32bit version of xplorer2 lets you use 32bit shell extensions on a 64bit windows
You know, I should have seen that from the context of the discussion.
Some days are denser than others...  undecided
Logged

All children left unattended will be given a mocha and a puppy.
superboyac
Charter Member
***
Posts: 5,702


Is your software in my list?

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #13 on: January 16, 2009, 04:54:56 PM »

So, for my new computer, should I use 64 XP?  I have 4 GB of ram.  At the same time, I tend to think like mouser, where if the difference is negligible, I don't need it.  My computer usage, while extensive, is not really heavy duty in that I use a lot of power.  I just do mostly email, file-management, web stuff, some multimedia, pro music applications (very light, not like a studio), and business related software.
Logged

f0dder
Charter Honorary Member
***
Posts: 8,774



[Well, THAT escalated quickly!]

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #14 on: January 16, 2009, 06:44:57 PM »

You're probably not going to need 64bit - and you probably won't feel the difference between utilizing ~3.5GB of RAM vs. 4GB with Win64.

You could go for 32bit XP now, and switch to 64bit Win7 when it comes out smiley (while the driver situation is OK for XP64 these days, it seems to be somewhat better with Vista/Win7).
Logged

- carpe noctem
superboyac
Charter Member
***
Posts: 5,702


Is your software in my list?

see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #15 on: January 16, 2009, 08:45:52 PM »

You're probably not going to need 64bit - and you probably won't feel the difference between utilizing ~3.5GB of RAM vs. 4GB with Win64.

You could go for 32bit XP now, and switch to 64bit Win7 when it comes out smiley (while the driver situation is OK for XP64 these days, it seems to be somewhat better with Vista/Win7).
Good advice, will do.
Logged

mouser
First Author
Administrator
*****
Posts: 33,571



see users location on a map View Profile WWW Read user's biography. Give some DonationCredits to this forum member
« Reply #16 on: January 17, 2009, 04:41:02 AM »

Just make sure that your motherboard and windows really does show you with at least 2gb or so free in windows -- i had an issue with my motherboard and windows32bit that meant i had well under 2gb of free memory when running win32 which really bothered me.
Logged
Pages: [1]   Go Up
  Reply  |  New Topic  |  Print  
 
Jump to:  
   Forum Home   Thread Marks Chat! Downloads Search Login Register  

DonationCoder.com | About Us
DonationCoder.com Forum | Powered by SMF
[ Page time: 0.047s | Server load: 0.03 ]