32-bit or 64-bit for XP....?

M

MYSTic Jedi

Limp Gawd
Joined
Jan 9, 2006
Messages
285
Just put together a new computer, and wondering which i should get, i am using Ubuntu right now and will continue to do so, but i will need windows for school, so just wondering, is there much of a difference in the 64-bit version, not just in benchmarks either...? Are there still a lot of bugs and what not like when it first came out? Thanks for all the advice!
 
Your not the first to face this dilemma and the topic has been beat to death.

Read through this.

If your talking XP I think you should just use 32-bit since you only have 2 GB of ram. There is no performance increase in everyday applications. I think intense mathematical/scientific applications are the only progs that fully take advantage of 64-bit.

What do you plan on using it for?
 
If you're just looking for some dual-boot compatibility, for games or whatever, 32-bit XP is the way to go. 64-bit XP isn't really a first-class citizen in the world of Windows, as evidenced by the lack of support from almost everyone. So unless you have a reason to go for 64-bit XP for development reasons or something, I recommend 32-bit.

64-bit Vista is pretty good though, I like it a lot.
 
The days of missing support for XP x64 are pretty much in the past. Unless you had some unique hardware device, you shouldn't have any trouble finding drivers. Software and games don't generally have any issues with XP x64 either. The problem is, none of that was true a few years ago, and people just never bothered to update their thinking or advice on XP x64.
 
I just installed Windows XP x64 on a computer and only had a problem with a dlink wireless card. Dlink doesn't make x64 drivers, but that's not a reason not to go x64, that's a reason not to buy dlink. Ever again.

All other drivers installed smoothly and I'm having no problems with anything so far. The cd that came with the Leadtek 7900gs didn't seem to have a x64 driver, but I went to their site and got it in 2 seconds w/o any problems.
 
For a graphics card like that, you would just get the driver directly from Nvidia. That's typically all the 3rd parties do anyway for graphics cards, at least on the Nvidia side.
 
GN85 said:
I just installed Windows XP x64 on a computer and only had a problem with a dlink wireless card. Dlink doesn't make x64 drivers, but that's not a reason not to go x64, that's a reason not to buy dlink. Ever again.

All other drivers installed smoothly and I'm having no problems with anything so far. The cd that came with the Leadtek 7900gs didn't seem to have a x64 driver, but I went to their site and got it in 2 seconds w/o any problems.
Click to expand...

I had the DLink card too, and that kept me from going to XP64 even though I wanted to for several months. But I found a good -n card at Newegg that's XP64 compatible, made by Edimax:
http://www.newegg.com/product/product.asp?item=N82E16833315078

...so now I'm running XP64 and loving it. I work with XP and Vista and Vista64, developing and testing software. Vista sucks, XP is quite good. But the thing about XP64, more important than the slightly better benchmarks it gives, is the experience of using it is so, well, smooth. It comes from the Windows 2003 server, and is fine tuned for multitasking, so if you have a multi core CPU, the thing just hums. Hard to put it in words, it's just tight.
 
TheGodfather47 said:
LOL... And what was it replaced by? Vista x64? I think not.
Click to expand...
To be fair, yes it was, in terms of the roadmaps. Most people would also suggest, if you were to be in the market to buy a new OS, and were planning to go the x64 route, you might as well go with Vista x64. You may not be a big fan of it, but it is, in fact, the successor to XP x64.
 
I think, performance wise, that XP x64 would kill Vista x64 - could just be me, though.

BTW, how does Server 2003 fit in vs. both of these?
 
I used xp64 for less than a week then went to vista 32 bit because I had to many issues. I recently went to 64 bit vista business and its been relatively smooth. Much more useable than xp64 was for me at least.
 
TheGodfather47 said:
I think, performance wise, that XP x64 would kill Vista x64 - could just be me, though.
Click to expand...
We could argue back and forth on gaming performance and such, but I'll tell you this. On the second system in my sig, I had XP x64 on it for a while, and then upgraded it to Vista x64. It is every bit as responsive as when it was running XP x64. On all computers I have running Vista, they've only gotten more responsive than when XP was installed on them, especially when under a load.
 
Server 2003 is a lot faster then both of these from experience.
 
Indeed, I have read that Vista gets faster with time.

I have read multiple opinions about RAM usages and such. Some say having more than 4GB is a waste, while others say you can not have enough. What is the truth, from a hardcore performance standpoint?
 
Hardcore for current systems and uses, I'd say 4 GB is the sweet spot. Anything above that, and you'd have to find some unique application or usage to get up there. Going the other way, with 2 GB, you're hitting the line that most current games are recommending. Add in the fact that you can get another 2 GB kit for less then the cost of a game, and it becomes an easy upgrade.
 
Well, the price is so enticing at this point - it's just ~$150 for 8GB. The question is: why not?
 
Assuming your board can handle it, and you have an x64 OS....the only thing you have to lose is the extra cost.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top