Welcome to MSFN

Register now to gain access to all of our features. Once registered and logged in, you will be able to contribute to this site by submitting your own content or replying to existing content. You'll be able to customize your profile, receive reputation points as a reward for submitting content, while also communicating with other members via your own private inbox, plus much more! This message will be removed once you have signed in.


colore

switch from Windows XP 64 Bit Edition to anything else

35 posts in this topic

hello!

Windows XP 64 Bit Edition seems to be the worst OS ever, in terms of compatibility

drivers, software, and so on are not compatible at all

so, i definately need to switch to any other WinOS, but without losing my files, settings, apps

is it possible???

thanks!

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
so, i definately need to switch to any other WinOS, but without losing my files, settings, apps

That is most likely the basis of your issues...

For a decent change to a whole new OS you would need to flush your system and reset all of the settings. (Yes you could keep file and MOST programs will still work) But having old settings will bite you is the @ss.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

isnt there supposed to be a "migration" method to move to Win7 or something that supposedly satisfies these needs?

or maybe a rollback to WinXP 32bit?

Edited by colore
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Roll back?? Hell no. Would never work.

Upgrade? Lets think.. XP x64 was released 7.5 years ago. Since then there has been 2 major OS releases and LOTS (Tons really) of changes and modifications. You will run into the same kind of issues especially if some of them are caused by settings.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Have you thought of upgrading to Windows 7 x64? I had always found XP x64 to be used only as needed. I also remember some incompatibilities with it.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I must be very lucky. I have an HP xw8200 (with two Xeon CPUs) that works flawlessly with Windows XP x64 Edition. Now I am not a gamer, and I don't run too much fringe software, but I have a GREAT user experience with this OS. I understand the compatibility and driver issues, but if you can get past them, I think Windows XP x64 Edition makes for a terrific and VERY stable OS.

Am I wrong folks?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Am I wrong folks?

Why should you be (or anyone else for that matters) be wrong, you are reporting your opinion, based on your experience.

I guess everyone is happy for your satisfying experience :).

This doesn't in any way negates how colore's experience was seemingly dreadful :ph34r:, nor my personal opinion that in most cases using a 64 bit OS gives not any practical advantage, or if you prefer is/was UNneeded and - in times of Windows XP - it was actually very rare to find suitable hardware and thus a PITA.

My crystal ball - though foggy - tells me that soon someone will post something like:

Hah! But with a 32 OS you cannot access memory beyond 3Gb!

and some other of the usual 64 bit fanboyism, so - as a preventive measure :whistle: - I will post a couple links:

http://reboot.pro/17568/

http://reboot.pro/16544/page__st__25#entry151030

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

While undoubtedly it is marginally slower, I really use alot more ram when I am testing 2 or 3 VM's at a time. I have used up to 80% of the 16gigs I have in my system.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

My crystal ball - though foggy - tells me that soon someone will post something like:

Hah! But with a 32 OS you cannot access memory beyond 3Gb!

and some other of the usual 64 bit fanboyism, so - as a preventive measure :whistle: - I will post a couple links:

http://reboot.pro/17568/

http://reboot.pro/16544/page__st__25#entry151030

jaclaz

you are saying that Win7 32bit can handle more physical RAM? how? what is the upper limit? there will be no problems at all?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

you are saying that Win7 32bit can handle more physical RAM? how? what is the upper limit? there will be no problems at all?

I said READ the given links (AND links within them) then take your own decisions/conclusions/whatever, only please don't give me the usual "32 bit systems cannot access more than 4 Gb of RAM" or the usual generic "64 bit is better".

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately some applications are still single-threaded and require a lot of RAM too :} so sometimes a 32-bit Windows may be not enough.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Unfortunately some applications are still single-threaded and require a lot of RAM too :} so sometimes a 32-bit Windows may be not enough.

Good, another one having not read the given links. :thumbup

I cannot post a direct link to the relevant info, because for *any* reason it is considered "hostile" by MSFN.

But I can point you to a related MS KB:

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888137/en-us

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the links carefully because I'm not interested in this topic that much :w00t:

But I do know from my testing that a 32-bit browser (Opera, Firefox) will crash once it reaches ~1,7 GB of RAM usage (2,4 GB when /3GB enabled) and this is not the case when a 64-bit version is used, is it?

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I haven't read the links carefully because I'm not interested in this topic that much :w00t:

But you feel like commenting on them nonetheless, "mostly illogical, but fascinating nonetheless" my good friend Spock would comment :whistle: .

But I do know from my testing that a 32-bit browser (Opera, Firefox) will crash once it reaches ~1,7 GB of RAM usage (2,4 GB when /3GB enabled) and this is not the case when a 64-bit version is used, is it?

Sure :thumbup , let's make a list of all applications that crash on a 32 bit OS (as all 32 bit OS are the same and particularly all MS ones and the myriad of version that there are of them all behave the same).

You should use 64 bit only systems (and also add some RAM to them), if you happen to easily hit 1.7 Gb oin a browser, the whole point was only that this is not "everyday common" and definitely it wasn't in XP 64 times.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Is it really that uncommon? You only need to open just a few sites with high resolution photographs to easily hit that limit.

Personally I can't use a 64-bit Windows because there are no drivers for several pieces of equipment which I've got here (printer, scanner, etc.). And I like Windows 2000 :ph34r:

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
Windows XP 64 Bit Edition seems to be the worst OS ever, in terms of compatibility

drivers, software, and so on are not compatible at all

so, i definately need to switch to any other WinOS, but without losing my files, settings, apps

is it possible???

It's always advisable to check for compatible drivers before changing operating systems. Decent 64-bit drivers started being released once Vista x64 was out for a few months, especially from the larger hardware manufacturing companies.

I'd also advise against arbitrarily moving to a newer operating system with aging hardware unless there's a very specific benefit to be gained by doing so. This is the main reason I'm still using XP x64 and still happy with it as a casual gamer and hobbyist.

A final suggestion--which happens to answer your question--is to always backup your files/settings and perform a clean install to reduce the likelihood of complications. If a program is currently misbehaving then it is reasonable to assume that it still won't work correctly after an in-place upgrade of the operating system. A fresh install has always been the best option in my experience.

[...] (IMHO) senseless 64 bit OS [...]
[...] the usual 64 bit fanboyism, so - as a preventive measure :whistle: - I will post a couple links:

http://reboot.pro/17568/

http://reboot.pro/16544/page__st__25#entry151030

So much hate... :(

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

So much hate... :(

Not at all. :)

Simply trying to have things called with their names :yes: .

  1. Is a 64 bit system more "capable" overall than a 32 bit system? Yes.
  2. Is a 64 bit system faster than a 32 bit system? Rarely.
  3. Is a 64 bit application running in a 64 bit OS faster than it's 32 bit counterpart? Rarely.
  4. Does everyone *needed* at the time of XP 64 a 64 bit system? No, only a very few people in the need of running very high end kind of apps might have actually *needed* one, and they would have had to be very careful in finding supported hardware and their drivers, at the time non-existing or rare or buggy.
  5. Does everyone *need* (now) a 64 bit system? No, only a few people in the need of running very high end kind of apps or however doing an "intensive" use of a PC may actually *need* one, the good news being that the issues with supported hardware and their drivers are not anymore a common problem.
  6. Is a 32 bit app running under a 64 bit faster than on a native 32 bit system? No.
  7. But 32 bit systems cannot access more than 3/4 Gb of RAM.... NO. The limit is given in some MS OS's by commercial/technical choices (NOT architecture limits) as - even without any technical knowledge easily verifiable by checking how most 32 bit Server edition support largely more that that, typically 64 Gb: http://msdn.microsoft.com/library/aa366778.aspx
  8. But 32 bit systems running PAE are slower than 64 bit systems accessing memory. Not really, or the differences (comparing very similar hardware) are negligible.
  9. But I like to have a 64 bit system anyway. That's good :thumbup:, and you can have one allright :), only you should know how most probably you won't be going to use all the increased potentialities of it when compared to a 32 bit system, and you shouldn't say that you chose it because 32 bit OS does not support more than 3/4 Gb of memory, as this is not the case, an OS vendor has introduced some limits to some of the 32 bit OS's it sells for its own (perfectly logical) commercial or technical reasons.

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need to be defensive. I'm sure you have your reasons. Just don't dismiss me as a fanboy and we'll be peachy. :)

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There's no need to be defensive. I'm sure you have your reasons. Just don't dismiss me as a fanboy and we'll be peachy. :)

Never thought you were a fanboy, as said there is a number of people that actually needed to have the XP 64 (only they are much less than the actual XP 64 user base) you may well be one of the few, and, like everyone else migrating to the new platform you must have had the same driver issues everyone else had, or you were another lucky peep like JodyThornton is?

However, as said, no problem if you hadn't actually a need for it and just fancied it. :)

The usual comparison between Porsche 911 and Toyota Hi-Lux (and a wheelbarrow :w00t:) JFYI:

http://www.911cd.net/forums//index.php?showtopic=24502&st=12

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I moved from 32-bit XP SP2 to XP x64 a few months after SP2 x64 was released, so I avoided the dreadful driver debacle associated with new operating systems. I got it cheap with a hardware purchase; wouldn't have been much of a loss if the OS was a dud. It grew on me and was far more stable than I had known 32-bit XP to be on my machine. So I stayed.

I would think this is the typical migration strategy of those that are not early adopters. I don't like paying to be a beta tester, and I'm not a tech addict that needs the latest bleeding edge gadget.

BTW, I do happen to own a wheelbarrow, and I like it too, but not because I'm a thief--I'm NOT a crook (and I'm not Nixon by saying so). :D

Edited by 5eraph
0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

BTW, I do happen to own a wheelbarrow, and I like it too, but not because I'm a thief--I'm NOT a crook (and I'm not Nixon by saying so). :D

Well, BOTH a Toyota Hi-Lux and a Porsche 911 would be way faster than your wheelbarrow (because they have more wheels). :whistle:

For NO apparent reason, but JFYI ;):

not-a-crook-demotivational-poster-1236616642.jpg

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

LOL. Great pic.

Well, BOTH a Toyota Hi-Lux and a Porsche 911 would be way faster than your wheelbarrow (because they have more wheels). :whistle:

There you go with the assumptions again. ;) Wheelbarrows are much faster than both your Porsche or your Toyota for moving dirt and yard waste across my property. At least when I'm pushing it.

Tell you what: You bring your Porsche and I'll bring my wheelbarrow. We'll race.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

How much can anyone bet that this topic by the OP is directly related?

One must "assume" that the OP is still intending an "upgrade" to Vista/7/8 x64 and can't stick to a single Topic...

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!


Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.


Sign In Now

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.