[colore]

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!

[Kelsenellenelvian]

Quote

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.

[colore]

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?

This post has been edited by colore: 07 November 2012 - 08:16 PM

[Kelsenellenelvian]

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.

[Tripredacus]

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.

[tomasz86]

Actually it seems to be completely impossible to upgrade the system. You always need to do a clean installation. Even Vista x64 doesn't support upgrading from it:

http://windows.micro...o-Windows-Vista

[jaclaz]

I would have thought that the migration tool was designed for that:
http://technet.micro...2(v=ws.10).aspx
though I have NO idea about it's compatibility with the (IMHO) senseless 64 bit OS's, apparently at least up to Vista they are supported:
http://technet.micro...0(v=ws.10).aspx

jaclaz

[JodyThornton]

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?

[jaclaz]

JodyThornton, on 08 November 2012 - 01:44 PM, said:

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 , 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:

Quote

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 - I will post a couple links:
http://reboot.pro/17568/
http://reboot.pro/16..._25#entry151030

jaclaz

[Kelsenellenelvian]

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.

[colore]

jaclaz, on 08 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

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

Quote

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 - I will post a couple links:
http://reboot.pro/17568/
http://reboot.pro/16..._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?

[jaclaz]

colore, on 08 November 2012 - 06:56 PM, said:

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

[tomasz86]

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

[jaclaz]

tomasz86, on 09 November 2012 - 04:51 AM, said:

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.
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.micro...kb/888137/en-us

jaclaz

[tomasz86]

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

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?

[jaclaz]

tomasz86, on 09 November 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

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

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

tomasz86, on 09 November 2012 - 05:16 AM, said:

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 , 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

[tomasz86]

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

[5eraph]

colore, on 07 November 2012 - 07:46 PM, said:

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.

jaclaz, on 08 November 2012 - 10:04 AM, said:

[...] (IMHO) senseless 64 bit OS [...]

jaclaz, on 08 November 2012 - 02:07 PM, said:

[...] the usual 64 bit fanboyism, so - as a preventive measure - I will post a couple links:
http://reboot.pro/17568/
http://reboot.pro/16..._25#entry151030

So much hate...

[jaclaz]

5eraph, on 09 November 2012 - 07:27 AM, said:

So much hate...

Not at all.
Simply trying to have things called with their names .

• Is a 64 bit system more "capable" overall than a 32 bit system? Yes.
  
• Is a 64 bit system faster than a 32 bit system? Rarely.
  
• Is a 64 bit application running in a 64 bit OS faster than it's 32 bit counterpart? Rarely.
  
• 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.
  
• 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.
  
• Is a 32 bit app running under a 64 bit faster than on a native 32 bit system? No.
  
• 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.microsof...y/aa366778.aspx
  
• 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.
  
• But I like to have a 64 bit system anyway. That's good :, 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

[5eraph]

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.