colore

switch from Windows XP 64 Bit Edition to anything else

35 posts in this topic

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

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

I don't have the Porsche :no: and I quite frankly cannot see a single reason for using my Toyouta Hi-Lux for moving dirt and yard waste across your property.

Of course, if you come over here with your wheelbarrow, I will be glad to give you a chance of showing me how fast you are moving dirt and yard waste across my property. ;)

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

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

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences.

For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP.

Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?)

I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS.

Just some thoughts.

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Some good points jaclaz. I did want to challenge a couple of them with my experiences (not to be argumentative at all, but just to provide my own experiences.

For running a 64-bit app on a 64-bit OS, I would find it is usually snappier. I am running an experiental x64 build of Seamonkey, and it seems to render slightly more quickly than an x86 build on 32-bit XP.

Outlook 2003 (an x86 app) should be slower on WinXP x64 since it's running on WOW emulation. But I wonder if more memory access allows more cache allocation to a 32-bit app (perhaps that may offset the speed dcrease from running in an emulation layer, is that possible?)

I have found using PAE mode memory access on Windows Server 2003 creates a noticeable performance hit, compared to accessing more memory with an x64 OS.

Just some thoughts.

As a matter of fact nothing really "challenging" :).

The comparison between a Server 2003 32 bit using PAE with a (say) Server 2008 R2 64 bit is one of those "practical impossibilities" :w00t: in the sense that I have never seen such a comparison done "properly" (if not for "research") i.e. on comparable hardware, usually you have a several years old machine running 32 bit 2003 Server, and you get a brand new machine, install to it 2008 R2 64 bit and this latter is actually much faster, but how much of it is due to the hardware and how much to the 64 bitness is normally to be seen.

I would go further :yes: affirming that - often - (and obviously I am making here a very generic statement :ph34r: ) servers need to have a very fast storage subsystem and their performance is rarely connected with how fast is their memory access, but rather on how fast is their storage subsystem.

When an actually memory intensive use of the server is needed, the advantage of the 64 bit memory addressing is seemingly more in the "capabilities" than in speed, see this as an example:

http://www.dell.com/downloads/global/solutions/oracle_performance_em64t_6850.pdf

on page 9 there is a nice XY graph showing how the performance (until a "size limit" is reached) is substantially the same. :whistle:

jaclaz

0

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

hello

just installed Win7

can you explain me please the following:

1) i connected a hd and i was not able to run exe's in it, etc

i wonder, if i have logged in as administrator, why it still requires for permissions, since they are set as 'full' for admin accounts?

anyway, i set full permissions for all users and that fixed the problem

2) i disabled index service manually, but how do i stop notifications 'your search may be slow' ? also, how do i detele the data of indexing service that are stored and are now useless?

3) i am not sure if i use AHCI, and if yes, if i use it for all my drives and any drives i add in the future

in my BIOS i last time have set manually to IDE

i also, no longer get the bios notification to enable AHCI when i start my pc

please advise

4) i 've heard that aero is a resource hog, how do i disable it? i dont know if it is enabled atm

thanks!

Edited by colore
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.