Latest word on XP X64?

[horvendile]

So, I'm hoping to buy a new computer in a few months. It will likely have an AMD X2-CPU, and I'm thinking about the OS. It will be either the common XP or the X64 version (Because Vista, or whatever it's called, isn't out for some time yet, is it? I haven't been keeping up.).

What's the latest word on X64? I know I can buy it. Anyone here using it? Do we know whether it's stable? How's driver support coming along? In short, will I want one?

 

[Guden Oden]

I'd be interested in knowing as well, considering I'm thinking of getting myself a 600-series P4 CPU. Not sure it'll be accepted by my BIOS, but it'll be worth a shot trying I suppose.

 

[MatiasZ]

A friend of mine lent me XP x64, and I've had it installed together with the x32 version for about a month now. It works pretty good, although I can't really tell any advantage over the x32 version. I've got almost everything in my system to work, except for my TV tuner and some other stuff like Daemon Tools, but I'm pretty sure there should be something like that for x64.

The thing is, XP x32 works just fine, and so does x64. I would only buy XP x64 if you intend to run any x64 exclusive applications (like coding for x64 ) or if you buy a OS only like once every 5 years, in which case it might be worth it.

 

[Monty]

http://www.beyond3d.com/forum/showthread.php?t=24995

talked about it abit in the thread above.

 

[horvendile]

MatiasZ and Monty: Thanks for the info.
I haven't really expected any big improvements with going to x64, but the mental satisfaction of knowing that I run a 64-bit OS may be enough...
I will probably use standard hardware and I tend to hang on to my OSes quite a long time (Only got me XP two years ago), so it looks like I'll seriously consider x64. I mean, if it works and I'm going to buy an OS anyway I may as well pay the incremental cost.

 

[Cartoon Corpse]

any drawbacks to running 32bit XP on a 64bit hardware till vista comes out? other than you can't address greater than 2G ram?

get you hardware in place, but stick with 32bit OS till all that's sorted out (drivers and whatnot).

or is it just as easy to go 64 and get a gaming rig gaming reliably, whether or not there's any bang! to it?

 

[MatiasZ]

other than you can't address greater than 2G ram?

The limit for 32 bit addresses is 4Gb, not 2Gb: you can access 2^32 bits. If you get 4 x 1Gb sticks you can run 4GB on any current system

 

[Frank]

The limit for 32 bit addresses is 4Gb, not 2Gb: you can access 2^32 bits. If you get 4 x 1Gb sticks you can run 4GB on any current system

No, Windows won't use more than 2GB, although there is a special switch for the kernel to use 3GB for Server 2003 and (IIRC) XP Pro.

 

[ERP]

No, Windows won't use more than 2GB, although there is a special switch for the kernel to use 3GB for Server 2003 and (IIRC) XP Pro.

To clarify, no single app can use more than 2GB's of address space (3 if you use the /3gb switch), The OS can use up to 4Gb to run multiple applications, although if you actually have 4Gb's of ram you find that you can't actually address it all (usually 3.5Gb or so) because hardware devices are mapped into the top of the address range (although some bios', allow them to be remapped).

X64 is fine, but there are some minor compatibility issues, personally unless you need it, I'd wait.

 

[Frank]

To clarify, no single app can use more than 2GB's of address space (3 if you use the /3gb switch), The OS can use up to 4Gb to run multiple applications, although if you actually have 4Gb's of ram you find that you can't actually address it all (usually 3.5Gb or so) because hardware devices are mapped into the top of the address range (although some bios', allow them to be remapped).

X64 is fine, but there are some minor compatibility issues, personally unless you need it, I'd wait.

I think that should be, that all applications together (the whole user space) cannot use more than 2 (or 3) GB. Although the kernel can use the rest, but that is only about 70 MB and some virtual space for things like devices.

Kernel space takes 2 (or 1) GB adress space. That's how it was decided long ago, when thinking of actually using Gigabytes seemed crazy. And the fix to limit that to 1 GB is pretty recent.

Edit: and I'm pretty sure normal applications cannot use more than 2 GB each, as that's how they're mapped out.

 

[MatiasZ]

No, Windows won't use more than 2GB, although there is a special switch for the kernel to use 3GB for Server 2003 and (IIRC) XP Pro.

Ups my bad... I was pretty sure you could. I know it will run and I THINK it should correctly detect it under Windows... I didn't know it couldn't be allocated... And what does it happen when you run a multi processor environment, as 8 x Opteron i.e.? Can you run 2Gb per CPU? How does windows server manage that??

 

[Frank]

Ups my bad... I was pretty sure you could. I know it will run and I THINK it should correctly detect it under Windows... I didn't know it couldn't be allocated... And what does it happen when you run a multi processor environment, as 8 x Opteron i.e.? Can you run 2Gb per CPU? How does windows server manage that??

If using shared memory, all the processors use the same adress space. I don't think Windows runs on computers that use dedicated memory (each processor has it's own), but in that case the limit would be for each processor.

 

[Richteralan]

I just installed Windows XP X64,
Got all drivers but my POS logitech quickcam express

Need more time to explore around....

 

[Skrying]

If you already own a copy of XP 32-bit then dont upgrade. No reason to unless you have the money to burn. Wait for Vista and use your copy of XP till then.

 

[max-pain]

DAEMON Tools 4.00 X64

DAEMON Tools 4.00 X64

http://www.daemon-tools.cc/dtcc/download.php?mode=Download&id=83

 

[Richteralan]

If you already own a copy of XP 32-bit then dont upgrade. No reason to unless you have the money to burn. Wait for Vista and use your copy of XP till then.

Dang, I feel that, too, after installed XP x64

 

[suryad]

I read that XP 64 was based on Win 2k3 code. That its memory management and task scheduler were better than the regular 32 bit XP. Since I am in the market for building a DCC myself I have been considering 64 bit and it looks like a good alternative. It is just that software support seems to be a bit lacking.

 

[Fox5]

If using shared memory, all the processors use the same adress space. I don't think Windows runs on computers that use dedicated memory (each processor has it's own), but in that case the limit would be for each processor.

I believe opteron motherboards have dedicated memory to each processor.

 

[arjan de lumens]

I believe opteron motherboards have dedicated memory to each processor.

While each processor has dedicated memory connected to it at the board level, the processors do present the memory to software as a single block of shared memory, so that e.g. Windows and its apps don't need to know the difference.

IIRC, AMD has claimed that if you run a program on the "wrong" processor (that is, one processor runs a program from memory connected to another processor) you get a ~10% performance hit.

 

[horvendile]

If you already own a copy of XP 32-bit then dont upgrade. No reason to unless you have the money to burn. Wait for Vista and use your copy of XP till then.

Normally good advice I'd say, but this time around I'm in the situation that the XP license I'm using now will likely not be legal to use on my new computer. And while I certainly could go the pirate route I thought it'd be nice to run a legal copy, which means buying one. So it's not using what I have now for free or buy x64 for a truckload of money; it's buy XP Home for one normalised monetary unit (nmu), buy XP Pro för 1.5 nmu or x64 Pro for 1.6 nmu.