The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
Will 32-bit XP strangle the performance of a 64-bit Processor?
THE Ted
TedoculusOklahomaRegistered User regular
TedoculusOklahomaRegistered User regular
I would like to just do some research but I can't search these forums for '64' or 'bit', so Ima just be annoying and make a new thread.
Ok so I am getting a 64-bit dual core processor tomorrow. I'm reading a lot about incompatibilities with 64-bit Windows XP. Then again it supposedly has weird higher memory things. Can anyone verify that 32-bit Windows XP doesn't suffer significant performance loss in the realm of games? I'm only going to have 2gb of ram, so I know technically keeping the 32-bit will be ok. I just don't want to be strangling my new system with 32-bit xp if that is the case.
In conclusion: Is it worth formatting and re-installing windows just to switch between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of XP? (I've seen wordings of people actually going BACK because of 64-bit version software incompatibilities)
Edit: I only plan to use 2gigs, and seeing as its XP and not Vista I can't imagine wanting or needed 4 gigs until I'm prepared to take the leap into Vista.
Ok so I am getting a 64-bit dual core processor tomorrow. I'm reading a lot about incompatibilities with 64-bit Windows XP. Then again it supposedly has weird higher memory things. Can anyone verify that 32-bit Windows XP doesn't suffer significant performance loss in the realm of games? I'm only going to have 2gb of ram, so I know technically keeping the 32-bit will be ok. I just don't want to be strangling my new system with 32-bit xp if that is the case.
In conclusion: Is it worth formatting and re-installing windows just to switch between the 32-bit and 64-bit versions of XP? (I've seen wordings of people actually going BACK because of 64-bit version software incompatibilities)
Edit: I only plan to use 2gigs, and seeing as its XP and not Vista I can't imagine wanting or needed 4 gigs until I'm prepared to take the leap into Vista.
The train is a lie. The cake is a spy.
THE Ted on
0
Posts
Since you only have 2GB of memory XP 32-bit will do you just fine. No problem.
I'm starting to think it's become some kind of nerdy urban myth.
You either were very careful in your choice of hardware or were lucky.
I tried XP64 on my laptop once, when I had to reinstall Windows on it for classwork anyway.
Drivers were unavaliable for my wireless card, printer, and PCMCIA tv-tuner. Oh, and video card, but you could hack the desktop XP64 video card drivers to kinda sorta work.
All of those pieces of hardware had Vista 64 drivers available (as well as Linux drivers).
XP64 was basically stillborn and nobody bothers to support it anymore.
Now, Vista 64 has fairly good support, comparatively speaking.
What brand of printer do you use? This is a serious question: I'm wondering which manufacturer doesn't suck with drivers.
I got it on release, Summer 2005, and used it for a year or so until Vista came out.
At first the driver support was really spotty, most things didn't have drivers. Some software didn't work. That sucked for a while, but gradually everything got drivers and x64 ran fine. Really, driver support was only an issue at the very start of x64's release.
I have no idea what the state of support is for x64 right now, maybe it got worse again after the shift to Vista. But even if it didn't, there's still no point to getting x64. You won't see any tangible performance increase over regular XP, and people will eternally look at you weird if you tell them you run x64. Like you're some kind of leper. A purple leper.
Just dont try and run any unknown chinese usb products, everything else will be fine. You even get a seperate Program File (x86) to keep track of the programs that are still 32bit
I'd really like to know your exact hardware specs.
even if you did know would you waste the time and money to recreate it or is this just for curiousity?
This is how it was with XP too. It was nigh unusable till SP1 and not really good till SP2. Basically any MS operating system pre-SP1 = Beta Version.
It's not just an MS thing, as a Mac guy (50% anyways) I can tell you that the last two OS X releases had tons of problems before the first big SP equivalent.
I personally didn't experience any problems with tiger or leopard. Now, 10 and 10.1, those are a different matter. I heard they were real horror stories. (this is on my Macbook then Macbook Pro)
From my understanding Microsoft used XP64 more as a testbed than a real proper release. And frankly the driver makers are tending to treat it as such too, I mean.. how many 32bit XP and Vista x86/x64 installs are there in comparison to XP 64? It's all a numbers game, the driver makers will dedicate more resources to the bigger install bases. Which is XP (32bit) and Vista x86/x64.
Here's my view, only go to a 64bit bit OS if you need it. Like for example you have 4GB of ram in your machine, because frankly the drivers and software that is written right now is tested and written with 32bit machines in mind, so that means optimisation etc. If you do go 64bit then go Vista, it's a sad reality but you can bet your arse you'll have driver problems at some point with XP64.
My home machine has a 64bit capable processor in it (Athlon 64 X2 4800+) and I use 32bit XP & Vista because I have no need for a 64bit at this time. Conversely my work machine has Vista x64 on it because it has 4GB of ram in and I need it for vmware when i'm running multiple virtual machines. (work machine is a Intel Core 2 processor)
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Also important to note, is that the majority of problems with Vista were related to third party drivers. Which Apple doesn't have to deal with. They don't rely on other companies in the same way MS does, because they have a closed hardware set. For this reason the comparison is largely flawed.
All that crap aside, back on topic:
XP64 is silly, go with Vista64 if you want 64bit. Check the Vista thread and you can see plenty of posts by users who have had zero issues. Driver support is pretty good now. You're not really hurting yourself for the time being by sticking with 32bit though, unless you have 4GB of RAM.
I spent about a day trying to install someone's copy of it onto their computer. Then I just downloaded Ubuntu x64 and holy shit it just fucking worked.
So if you want to use x64, either dual boot 32-bit Windows XP and 64-bit Ubuntu, or just go with Vista.
you can see up to 4 gigs but you can only use the first three and change, because address space in that last gig is saved for DMA access for your graphics card and other hardware.
Also, PAE only works for programs which are PAE aware for example I think Exchange is, SQL server might be. Generally it's only some specific programs that can take advantage of PAE. Most programs like games etc are not PAE aware therefore won't use anything above the memory limits of 32bit XP.
---
I've got a spare copy of Portal, if anyone wants it message me.
Link that I am basing my statment from.
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/system/platform/server/PAE/PAEmem.mspx
The available amount of memory addressing space is not, strictly speaking, an application issue. As Daedalus mentions, it starts with the hardware.
Large amounts of memoy addressing space above 3GB is reserved for the processor and other system components to talk with some devices by reading and writing memory addresses that exist between 3GB and 4GB. This is known as memory-mapped I/O (MMIO). For the MMIO space to be available to 32-bit operating systems, the MMIO space must reside within the first 4 GB of address space (see KB 929605). Remapping the MMIO space is one of several prerequisites for a 4GB system to be able to have all 4GB available (one of the others being the installation of a 64-bit operating system). Otherwise, you're stuck at around a little less than 3GB of memory available to the OS before you even start, regardless of the amount of actual physical memory installed. So, once you've started your 32-bit version of Windows with 3 or 4 GB of physical memory, you're going to have about 3,120 MB of usable memory available.
Microsoft Windows NT (and it's derivatives, so we're talking NT up to and including Vista) have always provided applications with a flat 32-bit virtual address space that describes 4GB of virtual memory. The address space is usually split so that 2 GB of address space is directly accessible to the application and the other 2 GB is only accessible to the Windows executive software. Some commonly reported architectural limits in Windows include:
- 2 GB of shared virtual address space for the system
- 2 GB of private virtual address space per process
- 660 MB System PTE storage
- 470 MB paged pool storage
- 256 MB nonpaged pool storage
The above applies to Windows 2003 Server specifically (from KB 294418), but also apply to Windows XP (including Home) and Windows 2000.At this point usually the boot.ini parameters /3GB, /4GT and /PAE often come up. They are all useless to you, and you do not want to use them regardless of how many completely anecdotal reports there are out theer regarding thier success. /3GB and /4GT are config settings for different versions of Windows that tell the operating system to change the partitioning of the 4GB 32-bit virtual address space so that applications can use 3GB and the OS kernel only 1GB, as opposed to the standard 2GB-each arrangement. It doesn't affect the 32-bit limit of 3GB of addressable physical memory issue, and most applications can't even utilize the additional space (one of the prerequisites is the application uses IMAGE_FILE_LARGE_ADDRESS_AWARE in the process header), so all you are doing is needlessly sacrificing kernel memory space (for every applications virtual memeory space) for no actual gain at all.
The /PAE boot.ini switch, activates the Physical Address Extension mode that's existed in every PC CPU since the Pentium Pro. That mode cranks the address space up to 64 gigabytes (2^36), and the computer can then give a 4GB addressing block within that space. But this still doesn't help the 3GB-limited user for two reasons:
First, it presents 64-bit addresses to system drivers, which causes the same compatability problems as a proper 64-bit OS, since now you must have PAE-aware 32-bit system drivers (which aren't common), instead of just plain-old 64-bit drives on a 64-bit OS (which, are starting to become more common, but are not nearly widely available for many common peripherals). You basically end up with even worse compatability problems that you'd have attempting to run a 64-bit version of windows, with all the disadvantages of a 32-bit OS; the biggest of which is that you still only have 3GB of addressible physical memory.
Second, for this reason, Microsoft changed the behaviour of the /PAE option in almost all versions of WinXP as of Service Pack 2 by disabling it entirely. This solved an endless amount of driver compatibility problems that existed with PAE, and limits all but the 64-bit versions of windows to a 4GB virtual addressing space for applications.
The only way you're going to (reliably) have more that 2GB of usable addressing space available to applications is you must first have:
- A motherboard chipset that supports at least 8 GB of address space (e.g. Intel 975X, P965, 955X on Socket 775, Socket F, Socket 940, Socket 939, Socket AM2).
- The CPU supports the x64 instruction set.
- The motherboard BIOS supports the memory remapping feature and the feature is enabled.
- An x64 version of Windows
The last bullet point also implies that you have suitable 64-bit drivers for all your system devices as well.This man speaks sooth.
Unless the server meets the conditions above, 32-bit servers (and the "Server"-titled versions of Windows) are similiarly limited in addressable memory (see above).
I plan on being happy with 2 GB of ram and XP for some time. When I bought XP as a student it came with both versions, the only reason I was considering it. Luckily with my new build I only had to re-install my 32-bit XP but without re-formatting the hard drive. I'd get Vista but I'm no longer a student and so Vista = money which = me waiting until its absolutely necessary.