Is Windows XP x64 the red-headed step child?

[Elledan]

After ordering the parts for my new system, it suddenly hit me that Windows XP (32-bit) might have some issues with the 4 GB in it. Some research made me think of sticking with Win2k3 (my current OS) after all as that one will recognize 4 GB just fine in the 32-bit version.

Then from a dark corner of my mind the thought of using WinXP x64 suddenly popped up. Not having heard anything about this OS pretty much since it was released years ago except about horrid driver support and such, I was surprised to find that it has matured nicely, and is actually quite usable, at least on par with Vista x64.

So in the end I decided to try to see how Windows XP x64 will work for me. I still find it curious how this OS has seemingly no presence on the big 'OS radar' screen, as though it was a miserable failure like ME.

Anyone else have such experiences? :)

[Tylerdurdened]

Meh.. I used it for about a year, had no problems with it.. and then again I had no benefits from it. I noticed 0 difference between 32 bit and 64 bit.

Just the other day I installed Vista x64 (before that I had Arch Linux. I'm a huge OS skipper), can't say I recognize any difference over Windows 32 bit which I had before Arch Linux. But I can definitely say that Unix sucks.

[brucedeluxe169]

But I can definitely say that Unix sucks.

lol

[Joe Average]

XP x64 is the best "workstation" OS Microsoft has yet to create when performance is truly important - and RAM expansion is an absolute must. It's based on Server 2003, as has been pointed out oh, entirely too much around here and most other places, but because of its "red-headed stepchild" reputation, the overwhelming majority of people will avoid it for one primary reason:

They'll bitch about driver support.

And while way back in March of 2003 when XP x64 first came out, that might have been true, it hasn't been true for the last 2-3 years, and most importantly it's not true right now. You can (with some effort for some components) locate a 64 bit driver for most nearly every non-POS non-crappy piece of branded hardware that exists in the PC world today.

Performance will exceed that of XP Pro x86 on the same hardware given the hardware is 64 bit capable, of course. Someday I'm going to do some extensive benchmarking and post results which anyone can verify and duplicate themselves to prove it, but for now the only suggestion I have is get XP x64 and run with it.

And another bonus:

You can buy XP x64 brand new (full install version, not upgrade) for roughly $80 these days online. Seriously. It's not only the best performing OS next to Windows Server 2003, but it's the cheapest by a wide margin.

[Mithent]

XP x64 is a fine OS; however, nowadays, Vista x64 is a much more popular choice on a new system. XP x64 is based on Server 2003, but so is Vista actually!

[Platinum]

Used it in the past and had no issues with it :)

[elektronisch]

But I can definitely say that Unix sucks.

You obviously do not know the benefits of linux. Linux can do many things windows cannot, and visa versa (play games). If you installed it to play video games, your mistake. :rolleyes:

[Elledan]

Thanks for the replies, guys :)

As for the Linux and Vista comments... At the moment I run WinXP (laptop), Win2k3 (server and workstation). After the upgrade next week it'll change this to WinXP, Win2k3 (server), WinXP x64 (workstation) and Ubuntu 8.04 (HTPC/fileserver). Plus I'm planning to set up a range of VMs which'll include everything from Windows to *BSD and *NIX.

In my opinion no OS sucks, as long as it has a clearly defined purpose. Linux has such a purpose, Vista doesn't, ergo I don't use the latter :)

[brucedeluxe169]

speaking as a rabid BSD fan, I can say that as of right now, windows *is* without a doubt the best OS on the desktop.... but yea, OSX and the Unixes are very nice as well....

on the server side, unix is undeniable though...

[Sovereign]

XP x64 and Vista are both based on the superior 2003 codebase. Vista x64 is new and has driver support rolling out, while XP x64 is being shoved out the door.

[DJ Lushious]

They'll bitch about driver support.
I would say that, yeah, XP64 driver support has tremendously improved over the course of its lifetime, but there still is an annoying amount of drivers not being offered for it.

No sense going to XP64 now that Vista 64 has gotten a lot more support over the past year, imo.

[Joe Average]

And do you think they just started coding 64 bit drivers clean outta the blue just for Vista x64? Hell no... they "ported" most of the developed drivers for XP x64 to Vista x64 specs... but that works both ways:

Vista's x64 driver sets almost always work for XP x64 - yes there are some instances where it doesn't work automagically but a few config file changes resolves that and gives XP x64 it's drivers once again.

[Elledan]

Interesting about the Vista x64 drivers... I'm sure that info might save my skin a few times :)

[MrWizard6600]

Getting someone who spicifically requests XP over vista but also has the budget gets 4 gigs of ram and Xp pro 64bit. I thought it was a no-brainer. I've had two such people ask me what they should do for a build like that now.

[Elledan]

Okay, so XP x64 lasted about a day on the system. I'm not sure what happened, but it may be due to accidentally trying to install a 32-bit driver (for a USB device). At any rate the OS kept freezing up after every boot. Now I'm back on Win2k3 (32-bit) which also detects the 4 GB of RAM :)

[gaspah]

yep i used it for about a year..played all my games ran all my software. fantastic.

but shit Vista x64 is available.. get that.

your purchasing an OS u may as well purchase todays OS fuck tricking around with that legacy shit

[SuperSubZero]

Okay, so XP x64 lasted about a day on the system. I'm not sure what happened, but it may be due to accidentally trying to install a 32-bit driver (for a USB device). At any rate the OS kept freezing up after every boot. Now I'm back on Win2k3 (32-bit) which also detects the 4 GB of RAM :)
Win2K3 may automatically enable PAE to get the full 4GB recognized. PAE introduces it's own potential compatibility problems.

[Elledan]

Win2K3 may automatically enable PAE to get the full 4GB recognized. PAE introduces it's own potential compatibility problems.

Yes, I'm aware of that :) At this point, however, I don't believe anymore that 64-bit Windows is the answer. I'd rather install 64-bit Linux =/

[Mistrblank]

Meh.. I used it for about a year, had no problems with it.. and then again I had no benefits from it. I noticed 0 difference between 32 bit and 64 bit.

Just the other day I installed Vista x64 (before that I had Arch Linux. I'm a huge OS skipper), can't say I recognize any difference over Windows 32 bit which I had before Arch Linux. But I can definitely say that Unix sucks.


Say it with me, "Linux is not unix. Linux is not Windows."

Furthermore I doubt you'll see any gains going from 32 to 64 bit support unless the applications you are using are written to support 64bit mode. Many are not. And on top of that unless you're running some very specific programs and specifically benchmarking with time tests and all, you're not going to see a performance gain.

The biggest gain in going from 32 to 64-bit OSes is the abilty to reference more internal memory. I'm pretty sure that's about all Microsoft devoted their time toward in developing xp64 because they were more concerned with putting out Vista.