XP 32-bit or 64-bit?

thetoad30 · Post by **thetoad30** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 9:12 am

Ok everyone, I need some first-hand advice:

I am upgrading from a Prescott 3.4GHz (550) to a new Core 2 Duo E6700. I have 4 GB of memory.

Besides the memory, would there be a huge advantage to going to XP 64? I really want to try it out, but if it's nothing but problems, I don't want to mess with it.

I do game a lot, so performance is very important to me, but so is making sure all my apps work under XP 64. Is it true what Microsoft says about being able to run any software (not drivers) under XP 64 if it runs under XP 32?

Thank you

Lawrence Lee · Post by **Lawrence Lee** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 10:25 am

The 64-bit version has a lot of problems. Don't even bother with it... there's no point with Vista on the horizon.

darthan · Post by **darthan** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 11:51 am

Yeah, if you do a lot of gaming you'll probably want to stick with 32-bit. Every piece of software should work, but (graphics, sound, etc)drivers for XP-64 aren't as mature as the 32-bit ones so 64-bit is probably slower for gaming. XP-64 is really a sort of interim solution until Vista arrives so if you don't need it, don't get it. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if 32-bit XP is the better gaming platform for at least another year because games will all still be made to run on it (well, alright, except Halo 3) and it may take a while for Vista video card drivers to mature to equal the performance of XP-32 drivers.

Dirty-Harry · Post by **Dirty-Harry** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 12:32 pm

darthan wrote:Yeah, if you do a lot of gaming you'll probably want to stick with 32-bit. Every piece of software should work, but (graphics, sound, etc)drivers for XP-64 aren't as mature as the 32-bit ones so 64-bit is probably slower for gaming. XP-64 is really a sort of interim solution until Vista arrives so if you don't need it, don't get it. Actually, I wouldn't be surprised if 32-bit XP is the better gaming platform for at least another year because games will all still be made to run on it (well, alright, except Halo 3) and it may take a while for Vista video card drivers to mature to equal the performance of XP-32 drivers.

I could not agree more. One should wait to upgrade to any new OS or patch. There is a potential bugs, driver issues and the list goes on. Like the lastest hardware, the best thing to do is wait and see. Let others find the problems. By the time you're ready to upgrade (software or hardware) you know what issues you may face.

thetoad30 · Post by **thetoad30** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:21 pm

Ok so you guys are saying that even though XP 64 can have exponentially more memory and memory management, it still runs games and everything else slower?

Is it because the drivers are less mature or is it a byproduct of the 64 bit system itself in terms of how it emulates 32 bit?

Thank you

zenboy · Post by **zenboy** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 1:58 pm

Driver "maturity" for XP-x64 is something of a joke, and I would love to hear someone name 10 applications that are 64-bit aware. XP-x64 remains a hacked up, broken little experiment with few (if any) benefits. It has the potential to address more max memory than XP x32, but really, how much ram do you have? I have 2G, and it is a rare day indeed when I feel like more RAM would help in a given situation.

cmthomson · Post by **cmthomson** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 4:11 pm

It's not so much driver maturity as it is driver availability. Only the most recent peripherals come with 64-bit drivers, and not all of them. For instance my less-than-a-year-old HP printer doesn't have a 64-bit driver (it's supposed to be out Any Day Now), and my older scanner and camera will never have new drivers.

The OS itself runs quite a bit faster, and the tiny amount of 64-bit application software also speeds up, but that's no use if your peripherals don't have drivers...

BTW, anyone want to buy my year-old Windows x64 CD?

thetoad30 · Post by **thetoad30** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 5:51 pm

Ok. Well all my peripherals do have drivers for XP 64. It's not driver's I'm worried about, nor am I worried about finding a 64 bit version of everything I have now installed on 32 bit XP... it's merely if XP 64 will run faster and run these 32 bit programs faster...

Because if it does, then I would do it. If it doesn't, then I'll stick with XP 32.

Thanks for all the replies, this is helping me! Keep them coming...

Post by **NeilBlanchard** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:04 pm

Hello,

I have WinXP Pro x64 edition on this computer (dual booted with a 32bit version), and everything on the computer works fine. I got printer drivers for 3 out of 4 printers, and some 32bit programs are a little slower.

It would be awesome if you need 4GB or more of RAM. Some AM2 motherboards can support up to 16GB!

There are some folks who do huge 3D models who would really like that much RAM.

I'm hoping that the CADD software that I use, DataCAD, which has a 64bit database, and will have a 64bit Display List, will come out with a 64bit version. It is currently a 32bit program, I'll bet it would benefit the speed if it was fully 64bit.

I have not yet found a 64bit firewall, but NOD32 runs great. You can run Folding@Home, but not Electron Microscope. Most other programs that I use are also fine in 64bit: Thunderbird, MailWasher, FireFox, SketchUp, DataCAD, IrfanView, EasyCleaner, CCleaner, WinAmp, SetPoint...

thetoad30 · Post by **thetoad30** » Fri Aug 25, 2006 7:59 pm

Ok. So basically I'm seeing here is that unless it's 64-bit supported and I need 4GB or more of RAM, then there is no point as it is just a "Windows ME" version of XP...

arrikhan · Post by **arrikhan** » Sat Aug 26, 2006 4:25 am

thetoad30 wrote:Ok. So basically I'm seeing here is that unless it's 64-bit supported and I need 4GB or more of RAM, then there is no point as it is just a "Windows ME" version of XP...

Well, windows ME was crap and buggy but XP isn't. You are correct though. Unless you have an application running in 64-bit mode or use more than 4 GB of RAM, you're wasting your time as it will actually run 32-bit mode stuff just slightly slower than 32-bit versions of XP.

The joy of v1.0 with Microsoft !

Arrikhan