does win XP 64-bit suck?

[urlwolf]

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 ) 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.

[jgpaiva]

Or you could go for Vista 64

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

[Eóin]

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.

[f0dder]

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.

[mouser]

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.

[f0dder]

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 . 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

[kartal]

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.

[Deozaan]

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.

[urlwolf]

Anyone has any experience on windows Server 2008? And what prices are we talking about here?

[Edvard]

@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

[jmj]

maybe because f0dder wrote that message on June.

[f0dder]

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

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

[Edvard]

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... 

[superboyac]

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.

[f0dder]

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 (while the driver situation is OK for XP64 these days, it seems to be somewhat better with Vista/Win7).

[superboyac]

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 (while the driver situation is OK for XP64 these days, it seems to be somewhat better with Vista/Win7).

Good advice, will do.

[mouser]

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.