64 Bit-Worth it?

[Deleted member 143938]

I'm thinking of buying XP 64 bit to use with my PC for Far Cry and some other games, but I have a few questions:
Will I be able to download 32 bit stuff and use them? Meaning if I download Steam and try to play CS:S, will it work?
What are some downsides?
And maybe if someone can give me some insight on the near-future plans for 64 bit
Thanks!

 

[LstBrunnenG]

32-bit software still works on XP x64.

Same with Linux, but it's much more involved.

 

[duby229]

OK, this is a hot topic. Before this day is out you will no doubt see some MS !!!!!!s, and some Intel !!!!!!s come in here and tell you NO!! it aint worth it.....

But let me give you my opinion. Granted this is just my opinion, it is just one in many, so please take what I'm about to say with a grain of salt.....

It comes down to your chioce of OS, and your upgrade plans. 1: If you choose to use windows, no it isnt worth it. MS made some very bad design desicions that will come bck to haunt them within the next two years, when ported Windows to 64bit. AMD64 has a mode of operation called compatibility mode, which allows it to run 32bit code natively. MS chose no to use it, and instead opted to run a runtime translator called WoW64. What it does is it actually converts 32bit code to use 64bit library calls. This has some very nasty side affects. I'm not going to get into why this was a bad desicion, except to ask you to look it up, and you'll see why.

2: Memory requirements. If you choose to use memory of 3GB or more you'll NEED a 64bit OS. 32bit OS's can technically address 4GB's but about 1gig of that is used for IO addresses, so there will only be 3gigs available as system memory. So if within this next upgrade cycle you will be using more then 3gigs, then yes you HAVE to use 64bits.

Which brings up a very interesting problem..... Most of us enthusiasts with recent hardware are already running two gigs. I realize that alot of us still have slightly, or in some cases more then slightly older hardware, but most of us that recently upgraded are running 2gigs of memory...... That means on the next upgrade cycle we will prolly be upgrading to 4gig, given that the price is right.... I'm sure it will be. So what to do? Do we deal with a buggy problem laden 32bit emulation environment? Or do we use an OS that can actually use the hardware that was designed to run 32bit code natively? Will MS be ready?

Somehow I doubt it. I really dont think MS will be ready for 64bit until at least Blackcomb.... If Vista sticks around as long as XP did, then that wont be for at least another 6 years, by which time most of us will be LONG past the 4gig problem..... I see some major problems ahead for MS. There are other OS's that actually handle 32bit compatibility properly, that are already working as good as the 32bit counterparts, in tose cases that will be the only real solution until MS gets it's head out of the sand.

 

[Dan_D]

I've been running Windows XP Professional x64 Edition for over a year now. On my dual Opteron machine, even when I only had the 246's I noticed an increase in responsiveness.

Remember, I only had 1GB of ram when I first put it together. I have 4GB in it now. The fact of the matter is the Opteron and Athlon Processors execute 64bit code faster than they do 32bit code. So on an x86-64 processor, I'd recommend it. If you have 4GB of ram, I'd definitely recommend it.

If you do video capture, forget it. There isn't shit in the way of video capture drivers for Windows XP Professional x64 Edition.

On the Intel side, the Netburst and Core architecture based CPU's with EM64T execute 32bit and 64bit code about the same. As a result, it really depends on other factors like how much ram you are going to be using, and what you will be doing with the system that would be part of any logical decision surrounding your choice of OS.

Here is the big one, with Vista so close, unless you need to buy an OS now, I wouldn't waste money on buying Windows XP Professional x64 Edition if you already own a 32bit copy of Windows XP. It simply isn't worth it.

 

[InternalStorm]

I would stick with 32-bit for now, and if you decide to get Vista then you can consider the 64 bit version. The truth is, there isn't really an advantage to using 64bit Windows unless you are using a substantial amount of RAM.

Drivers are still a problem and not having a driver for just ONE of your beloved hardware components is not something that is very comforting. Vista will be the OS that will take us to a level that is more on par on the 64/32 bit front, but I think it will take another OS generation to really ensure that all our hardware is compatible.

 

[Yashu]

I like windows x64. Latest kernel, supports lots of memory address space, faster paging, stable.

Though, if you are installing an OS right now, install xp32 because it seems there is no upgrade path to vista from windows x64.

 

[asphodel]

If you need 4GB+ memory, then yeah. If you primarily use 64-bit apps, then yeah. If you primarily use 32-bit apps / play games, then it's some degree of extra trouble in exchange for probably nothing and maybe decreased performance. Same as any other specifications question...use what's appropriate for what you need. You don't use a hammer on a screw, even if it's a really nice hammer.

 

[Stoly]

I've been using x64 since it was released. Even with a gig of ram x64 "feels" faster and more responsive than XP. I really like it and see little reason to go back to XP.

The major achilles heel is the lack of drivers and compatibility problems (which most of the time are the need for 64bit dlls).

What I really don't understand is why its so hard to make 64bit drivers. Scanners, printers, digital cameras, video capture cards, memory cards readers don't really need 64bit optimized drivers like 3d video cards. According to AMD and MS only a simple recompile was needed to make 64bit versions of 32bit drivers.

Far from the truth.

The only way I cured all my driver compatibility problems was to install a virtual windows98 pc.

That made me think, why didn't MS made a "virtual 32bit XP for drivers" so you could run 32 bit drivers on a 64 bit system. Sure it would be slower, but its not like you can't wait an extra 5-10 seconds for the document to print or the page to scan.

 

[Solarfall]

32-bit software still works on XP x64.

Same with Linux, but it's much more involved.

Really did know that, 64bit windows xp is starting to look very tempting.

 

[Murtrude]

i love my 32 bit but i'll prolly upgrade to 64 when vista comes out.

 

[killingfield1975]

phuck it. i jumped oin on the 64bit band wagon. go with the masses brother! hahahaha

 

[swatbat]

2: Memory requirements. If you choose to use memory of 3GB or more you'll NEED a 64bit OS. 32bit OS's can technically address 4GB's but about 1gig of that is used for IO addresses, so there will only be 3gigs available as system memory. So if within this next upgrade cycle you will be using more then 3gigs, then yes you HAVE to use 64bits.

Server 2k3 enterprise 32 bit supports more then 4 gigs of ram. Each process maxes out at 2 gigs though. Kinda off topic though.....

To the OP. If you already have xp pro(or home) 32 bit then I would not worry about windows 64. Also while 32-bit software does work on windows 64 it can have some issues. Not all software runs 100 because of this. Driver support needs work as well. I'd prob recomend 32 bit windows anyway unless you need support for more ram(since server is pricey)

 

[duby229]

Server 2k3 enterprise 32 bit supports more then 4 gigs of ram. Each process maxes out at 2 gigs though. Kinda off topic though.....

To the OP. If you already have xp pro(or home) 32 bit then I would not worry about windows 64. Also while 32-bit software does work on windows 64 it can have some issues. Not all software runs 100 because of this. Driver support needs work as well. I'd prob recomend 32 bit windows anyway unless you need support for more ram(since server is pricey)

If you want to suffer with PAE...

Those problems you talk about are entirely related to WoW... Like I said it is a horrible solution to a problem that doesnt even exist. If MS chose to use compatibility mode, WoW wouldnt even need to exist.

Check it out, you'll see what I'm talkin about.

 

[Josh_B]

Server 2k3 enterprise 32 bit supports more then 4 gigs of ram. Each process maxes out at 2 gigs though. Kinda off topic though.....

To the OP. If you already have xp pro(or home) 32 bit then I would not worry about windows 64. Also while 32-bit software does work on windows 64 it can have some issues. Not all software runs 100 because of this. Driver support needs work as well. I'd prob recomend 32 bit windows anyway unless you need support for more ram(since server is pricey)

Indeed 2003 does support more than 4GB of RAM. It does so through the use of PAE, which drains the life from memory performance.

Wonderful.

The reason MS went with pure long mode as opposed to compatibility is because of the extra libraries requried. Two of everything required to run Windows apps... this is how Linux works... you have /lib, and then /lib64. What a PITA to get some apps to work. MS made the right choice, if not because of the libs required, then definitely because of the performance penalty when switching between modes. Sure, they traded some compatibility, and definitely they traded some performance, but in the end, it is the cleanest, bestest choice.

 

[Dalrain]

I also bought a copy of Win XP Pro x64 recently, and I haven't looked back. I've got 2GB of RAM, and the performance went up nicely after the switch. If you're a HL2 fan, the load times are less than half "normal" with the 64-bit version. And yes, all your regular old 32-bit applications will run just fine, all of mine do.

There is the remaining driver issue, so you should probably make sure all your hardware will be supported after the upgrade. (Mine was, with the exception of my GuitarPort...darn you Line6! They need to get their butts in gear! )

 

[killingfield1975]

I also bought a copy of Win XP Pro x64 recently, and I haven't looked back. I've got 2GB of RAM, and the performance went up nicely after the switch. If you're a HL2 fan, the load times are less than half "normal" with the 64-bit version. And yes, all your regular old 32-bit applications will run just fine, all of mine do.

There is the remaining driver issue, so you should probably make sure all your hardware will be supported after the upgrade. (Mine was, with the exception of my GuitarPort...darn you Line6! They need to get their butts in gear! )

so what kinda differences did you see with win xp 32bit vs win xp 64 bit? was it faster? more stable? what it do?

 

[MrWizard6600]

for some numbers, 32 bit OS's support 4.2 gigs of ram, maximum, this is barring all the techies numbers who talk about WoW and w/e that other one is called, but i can tell you a 32 bit proc will acess a max of 4.2 gigs of ram.

where a 64 bit proc can acess 18 billion gigs of ram. i think 64 bit tech will last for a fair while to come. unless of course someone finds a material that allows for a magnet density a billion times greater then that of your current gen stuff. and then we can find a use for such information...

imagine how many decimals we will be able to calculate Pi too...

my dad still has an IBM 8088...

 

[Rembrandt]

I also have Windows X64 and am sorry that I ever went to it. I have 20 programs loaded and all are loaded under the 32 bit system. This includes the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat. Many companies say that their programs work on the X64 system, it is just they do not tell you that they are just loaded under the 32 bit system. I can not get full usage of my HP Lasejet printer because they do not have drivers for it. I will purchase Vista 32 bit when it comes out.

 

[duby229]

Indeed 2003 does support more than 4GB of RAM. It does so through the use of PAE, which drains the life from memory performance.

Wonderful.

The reason MS went with pure long mode as opposed to compatibility is because of the extra libraries requried. Two of everything required to run Windows apps... this is how Linux works... you have /lib, and then /lib64. What a PITA to get some apps to work. MS made the right choice, if not because of the libs required, then definitely because of the performance penalty when switching between modes. Sure, they traded some compatibility, and definitely they traded some performance, but in the end, it is the cleanest, bestest choice.

Why is it a problem? 32bit libraries already exist in the 32bit version of the same thing? It is not a duplication of effort. It is just simply the proper way of doing things.

Instead they choose to do something as stupid as a emulastion layer for hardware that is fully capable of running the code natively. Which in turns breaks compatibility, and hurts performance, and just causes problems.... Problems which shouldnt exist in the first place, becouse the hardware was designed to deal with them using compatibility mode.

 

[Ub3rn00b]

The truth of the matter is that most of the people that use xp 64 right now are only using it so that they can show their other computer nerdy friends that they have it. Nevermind that none of their programs work and most of their hardware is useless now. Games? Forget about it. DVD conversion and capture? Forget about it. So what is the advantage? You can get nerdy dudes to drool on your screen. You can also get nerdy chicks to drool too. On what is up to you.

Wait at least another year for more compatibility before trying to use a 64bit OS. For MOST people, they'll still be using 32 bit OSs in another year too. Most people I know that have a 64 bit system / OS also have another system that has 32 bit OS so that they can carry on their normal lives.

 

[Yashu]

I agree that the lack of 64bit native software has been a letdown. Honestly... software companies have really dropped the ball here. Microsoft provided ample time to develop software and drivers. They pleaded with software and hardware companies to work and get them out by launch of XP64.

But, as you can see, the releases have been slim. Drivers have gotten better after a LONG time now... because so many people called or e-mailed bitching that their devices were not working. But I think the fact that the WoW worked so well was part of XP64s problem. There wasn't that much incentive for a software company to develop a 64bit version.

On the server side it's different. There is lots of 64bit stuff and it really helps.

On the desktop though, there are alot of softwares that I would love in 64bit. AutoCAD, 3DStudio (this would be SO awsome), even Photoshop would be good too... I wish the top games had a 64bit client (farcry excluded... it had about EVERYTHING first).

I have tried 64bit builds of OSS software... and I have heard SolidWorks has an x64 version... but I wish Inventor did too.

The big reason to use windows xp64 is if you use lots of memory... and if you multitask alot... also if you wish to use the latest kernel version (based on server2003).

 

[Anemone]

And this is exactly why quad core isn't going to be useful for a while either...

There needs to be a critical mass of machines out there supporting it for it to be useful. Another year or two you'll see much more software. Most vendors will take the occasion of creating a Vista version (if they do that) and do it 64 bit in addition to Vista.

This is also the same reason you'll only just start to see dual core software begin to come to life. And quad core aware is a ways down the pike.

 

[Modred189]

I think I see where you are going, OP:
You want to buy a new machine. The allure of 64bit is out there, especially with Vista coming out. I realize, and I agree with the fact, that WinXP 64 wasn't all that hot. No drivers (though that has gotten better), weird glitches, and low support all kept it from taking over, PLUS the high quality of XP in general and the lack of true 64bit from Intel all meant it was doomed from the start.
HOWEVER.
With the advent of the Core 2 series from Intel, and the continuing Athalon's from AMD, the hardware for 64bit is finally there. Also, being that Windows is now 64bit, not just a poor side-version, I think it is only a matter of about a year or so after Vista's launch before the switch begins.
Thus, my recommendation is to do one of two things: wait until the first quarter of 2008 and get your system then, or around there.
OR, start working for a major computer retail chain and sign up for intel's deal where you can get a core2, mobo and Vista ultimate for $200.

 

[Josh_B]

Why is it a problem? 32bit libraries already exist in the 32bit version of the same thing? It is not a duplication of effort. It is just simply the proper way of doing things.

Instead they choose to do something as stupid as a emulastion layer for hardware that is fully capable of running the code natively. Which in turns breaks compatibility, and hurts performance, and just causes problems.... Problems which shouldnt exist in the first place, becouse the hardware was designed to deal with them using compatibility mode.

It would be a problem because you would need to maintain double the amount of code on an x64 PC. This means twice the number of updates, and potentially twice the install size. MS has to think about the manageability and footprint of their OS'. Furthermore, because the Windows OS is so tightly integrated (read: dependencies), my guess is that they would need to duplicate too much of the OS to be practical. By the time they managed to resolve all of the dependencies required to install a parallel 32-bit environment, you might as well install XP 32-bit.

Incidentally, the worst problems I've had with XP x64 are related to installers that check for only certain versions of Windows, or those that are 16-bit. There is not much you can do for the 16-bit installers, but MSI files and installers can be modified or tricked.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

It comes down to your chioce of OS, and your upgrade plans. 1: If you choose to use windows, no it isnt worth it. MS made some very bad design desicions that will come bck to haunt them within the next two years, when ported Windows to 64bit. AMD64 has a mode of operation called compatibility mode, which allows it to run 32bit code natively. MS chose no to use it, and instead opted to run a runtime translator called WoW64. What it does is it actually converts 32bit code to use 64bit library calls. This has some very nasty side affects. I'm not going to get into why this was a bad desicion, except to ask you to look it up, and you'll see why.

You are wrong.

Since the AMD64 architecture includes hardware-level support for 32-bit instructions, WOW64 simply switches the process between 32- and 64-bit modes. However, on the IA-64 architecture, WOW64 was required to translate 32-bit x86 instructions into their 64-bit IA-64 equivalents—which in some cases were implemented in quite different ways—so that the processor could execute them. As a result, AMD64 microprocessors suffer no performance loss when executing 32-bit Windows applications, whereas IA-64 implementations experience noticeable performance loss.

Although 32-bit applications can be run transparently, the mixing of the two types of code within the same process is not allowed. A 64-bit application cannot link against a 32-bit library (DLL) and similarly a 32-bit application cannot link against a 64-bit library. This may lead to the need for library developers to provide both 32- and 64-bit binary versions of their libraries. Windows XP x64 Edition includes both 32- and 64-bit versions of Internet Explorer, in order to allow for the possibility that some third-party browser plugins or ActiveX controls may not yet be available in 64-bit versions.

Older 32-bit drivers and services are not supported by 64-bit Windows, but video and audio codecs such as XviD or OggDS (which are in fact 32-bit DLLs), are supported as long as the media player that uses them is 32-bit as well.

Note that I didn't come to the conclusion that you are wrong based solely on the wikipedia article. That would be dangerous, because wikipedia can in some cases be wrong. However, I've tried to set up 32-bit chroots on 64-bit Linux installs before. It's not fun. On the other hand, if my AMD64 processor can simply execute my 32-bit code natively, why would I need to chroot at all? The answer is that, while the code is natively 32-bit and can be executed on the processor with no problem, that code can't be executed in a vaccuum. It needs to interact with the operating system and the kernel. A 32-bit process can't interact with a 64-bit operating system. Thus, you need a compatibility layer.

WoW does have the ability to translate 32-bit code into 64-bit code, but it only does that for Itanium, which causes a performance drop when running 32-bit code on an Itanium. The reason there's no performance drop when running XP x64 on an AMD64 is because WoW doesn't need to do any translating. It's simply providing a 32-bit environment for the process to run in.

 

[duby229]

There is a massive performance loss. Check it out, you'll see.

And Wiki is correct, but it does not tell the whole story. It does run the 32bit code natively, but it translates library calls to 64bits.... That is why you only have 64bit libraries on the system. It also does not use compatibility mode, it uses WoW to emulate a 32bit environement, which then executes the 32bit code natively....

Check it out, you might want to do a little bit of studying into how it all works. Wiki is correct, but it is incomplete.

Basically you have this 32bit applications run inside WoW, which emulates a 32bit environment, and translate 32bit library calls to 64bits, and only the libraries, and executables which are run inside the emulation environment are run natively, any library call that is outside of the emulation environment gets translated to use the existing 64bit calls. WoW itself is a 64bit application. So as frar as the system is concerned the whole thing is 64bit.

You can think of WoW as a kind of virtual machine, which emulates a 32bit environment. Anything inside WoW is run natively t 32bit, and library callls that go outsie of that environment are translated to use the existing 64bit calls, and WoW itself is 64bits.

Getting into Linux.... 32bit chroots are a cake. Just unpack a stage tarball, then cd into that directory and run linux32 chroot . /bin/bash. Simple. Not to mention that 32bit chroots are completey unnecassary.... That is why most distro's have a 32bit library folder, and all of the required environment variables preset.... You want to run a 32bit application, just fire it up, and run it... Period.

Runing a 32bit version of Gentoo consumes about 2 gigs after gnome is installed, and cleaned. Running a 64bit version of gentoo consumes about 2.3 gigs after gnome is installed and cleaned. Woopty doo considering its running on an 80gig drive big deal.... Space is not an issue we need to concern ourselves with in this day and age.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

You are wrong.

Note that I didn't come to the conclusion that you are wrong based solely on the wikipedia article. That would be dangerous, because wikipedia can in some cases be wrong. However, I've tried to set up 32-bit chroots on 64-bit Linux installs before. It's not fun. On the other hand, if my AMD64 processor can simply execute my 32-bit code natively, why would I need to chroot at all? The answer is that, while the code is natively 32-bit and can be executed on the processor with no problem, that code can't be executed in a vaccuum. It needs to interact with the operating system and the kernel. A 32-bit process can't interact with a 64-bit operating system. Thus, you need a compatibility layer.

WoW does have the ability to translate 32-bit code into 64-bit code, but it only does that for Itanium, which causes a performance drop when running 32-bit code on an Itanium. The reason there's no performance drop when running XP x64 on an AMD64 is because WoW doesn't need to do any translating. It's simply providing a 32-bit environment for the process to run in.

So since I have AMD 64, using 32 bit apps in Windows 64x won't degrade performance at all?
On that note, if 32 bit apps can run on Win 64, how come we can't simply download 32 bit drivers and temporarly use them on Win 64 to power hardware?

 

[duby229]

Becouse drivers are kernel mode. the kernel runs in Long mode, and WoW runs in user mode. Device drivers cannot run in user mode.

 

[Josh_B]

So since I have AMD 64, using 32 bit apps in Windows 64x won't degrade performance at all?
On that note, if 32 bit apps can run on Win 64, how come we can't simply download 32 bit drivers and temporarly use them on Win 64 to power hardware?

Kernel mode has to remain 64-bit.

Userland can be 32-bit if required.

Edit: NM - just noticed Duby already posted the same...

 

[Josh_B]

Running a 32bit version of Gentoo consumes about 2 gigs after gnome is installed, and cleaned. Running a 64bit version of gentoo consumes about 2.3 gigs after gnome is installed and cleaned. Woopty doo considering its running on an 80gig drive big deal.... Space is not an issue we need to concern ourselves with in this day and age.

Are you assuming the 32-bit libs are installed? And it is still 2.3GB? That is interesting, as 64-bit code consumes more space anyways. (Mainly due to code density)

If you can fit all of the 64-bit libs and the 32-bit ones with only 300MB difference, I must be doing something wrong!

 

[LstBrunnenG]

There is a massive performance loss. Check it out, you'll see.

As a result, AMD64 microprocessors suffer no performance loss when executing 32-bit Windows applications, whereas IA-64 implementations experience noticeable performance loss.

Wiki is correct, but it is incomplete.

One of you is wrong. Massive performance loss != no performance loss.

Also, I've used XP x64 for almost a year and I'm currently using Vista x64. My XP x64 install was faster than 32-bit install, if anything.

AMD64 has a mode of operation called compatibility mode, which allows it to run 32bit code natively. MS chose no to use it, and instead opted to run a runtime translator called WoW64. What it does is it actually converts 32bit code to use 64bit library calls. This has some very nasty side affects.

How would any kind of compatibility mode on my processor help my 32-bit process find 32-bit libraries? By your own admission, the 32-bit code is being executed natively in 32-bit on the processor.

I'm not going to get into why this was a bad desicion, except to ask you to look it up, and you'll see why.

I did do a search for this. What I found was that Wikipedia article and the blog of someone on MSDN. None of these sources mention the problems you've brought up. People have no problem slamming Microsoft when they feel it's doing something stupid. (see: Internet Explorer, Microsoft Bob, Windows Me) If this were really as much of an issue as you say it is, developers would be foaming at the mouth about it and I would see rants plastered all over my searches. I'd probably have even seen criticism of WoW on Wikipedia - even Mother Theresa has a criticism section.

I've looked, I haven't found anything, and it goes against my first-hand experience, so, please, cite your sources.

 

[The Cobra]

I also have Windows X64 and am sorry that I ever went to it. I have 20 programs loaded and all are loaded under the 32 bit system. This includes the latest versions of Adobe Photoshop and Acrobat. Many companies say that their programs work on the X64 system, it is just they do not tell you that they are just loaded under the 32 bit system. I can not get full usage of my HP Lasejet printer because they do not have drivers for it. I will purchase Vista 32 bit when it comes out.

You are going to be out of luck if your processor is 64-bit (AMD54 or Inter EMT64) Windows is going to have both versions of windows on the DVD. Your install will depend on that. So it will do an upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows Vista....

 

[duby229]

One of you is wrong. Massive performance loss != no performance loss.

Also, I've used XP x64 for almost a year and I'm currently using Vista x64. My XP x64 install was faster than 32-bit install, if anything.


How would any kind of compatibility mode on my processor help my 32-bit process find 32-bit libraries? By your own admission, the 32-bit code is being executed natively in 32-bit on the processor.


I did do a search for this. What I found was that Wikipedia article and the blog of someone on MSDN. None of these sources mention the problems you've brought up. People have no problem slamming Microsoft when they feel it's doing something stupid. (see: Internet Explorer, Microsoft Bob, Windows Me) If this were really as much of an issue as you say it is, developers would be foaming at the mouth about it and I would see rants plastered all over my searches. I'd probably have even seen criticism of WoW on Wikipedia - even Mother Theresa has a criticism section.

I've looked, I haven't found anything, and it goes against my first-hand experience, so, please, cite your sources.

You can choose to take this information out of context if you wish. You can also choose to look for information contradicting what I say....

But on the otherhand you can also choose to look for information about how WoW works, and get to the meat of the subject. It comes down to what you search for. You can search for "WoW compatibility issues" Or "WoW specifications" or "How does WoW work" Any number of others, then you can buid an idea. Chances of you finding any one coherent source is slim.

Of course I can do the opposite and prove that WoW is the best thing on earth by searching for opinions such as yours, or I can prove that WoW is the shittiest thing on earth by searching for opinions such as mine. But they dont prove anything....

So do your own research, and you'll see the truth with your own two eyes.

 

[Yashu]

So it will do an upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Windows Vista....

Maybe, that is the sucky part.

The upgrade matrix says windows XP64 does not have an upgrade path to vista... However, it does not specify if 32bit vista can upgrade to vista 64. It doesn't go into that detail.

I posted a whole thread in the OS forum asking about this and nobody knew the answer.

I want to know *for sure* if XP32 can upgrade to vista64 or not.

I know xp64 can't (or maybe it can... again the matrix does not specify between 32bit and 64bit vista), but I may rebuild my machine soon, and if xp32 can, infact, upgrade to vista64, I will run xp32.

But I am not going to waste the time if it can only upgrade to vista32... I will just keep my current OS.

I like xp64 for what it is... and it works well for me, enough to where I will stick with it, esp. if I have to format/reinstall either way to get vista64.

 

[duby229]

Are you assuming the 32-bit libs are installed? And it is still 2.3GB? That is interesting, as 64-bit code consumes more space anyways. (Mainly due to code density)

If you can fit all of the 64-bit libs and the 32-bit ones with only 300MB difference, I must be doing something wrong!

No the deal is that it pulls in 32bit libraries based on whether or not it needs them. Just like any other dependancy.

Also Binary size is not really affected by whether or not its 64bit. The truth is that compiler options have a greater effect on the size of the binary then almost anything else. The difference is the size of the data set, not the code....

Keep in mind 32bit code is damn near identical to 64bit code.... The only real difference is the size of integers... That is it... 64bit has a slightly larger memory footprint, but that is about it. The size of binaries are not really effected except in the fact that compiler options may be, but most likely wont be, slightly different.....

Most 32bit programs need NO modification at all to be compiled into a 64bit binary. Just simply a recompile in most cases. The only problems that might be had occur in two situations. 1: when an integer variable is declared incorrectly, or 2: if there is hand coded assembly that doesnt take the added registers into account.

In the case of MS it is even worse in that they droped support for X87, MMX MMX2 3DNOW, and EXT3DNOW. so in these situations when porting to windows you'll have to rewrite all that code for SSE. These are not a problem in Linux however.

 

[LstBrunnenG]

From http://www.gamepc.com/labs/view_content.asp?id=amd64xp&page=4

4) Does WoW64 (Windows-On-Windows 64) decrease performance?
WoW64 does not have the performance penalties that full-scale 32-bit emulation incurs. But, as the CPU is translating 32-bit calls into 64-bit calls, there is always a bit of performance overhead, which takes away speed from the application. While we have not run any full-scale performance benchmarks on the operating system yet, from our early time with the OS it does not appear that WoW64 will take a noticeable performance hit for running 32-bit applications under Windows XP 64-bit Edition. If we were to estimate numbers, we would likely say under the 1-2% percentage point for performance loss in comparison to a 32-bit operating system.

Our folks at AMD say any performance loss associated with WoW64 will likely be overshot by the performance gains one will see with the efficiency of 64-bit drivers and 64-bit memory management. In short, 32-bit games and applications should run just as fast on current Windows XP 64-bit Edition as they do on today's 32-bit Windows XP Professional.

From http://www.quepublishing.com/articles/article.asp?p=366536&rl=1

Windows on Windows 64

The major difference between the installation CD for the 64-bit version of Windows XP Professional and normal 32-bit versions is the AMD64 folder. This folder contains 64-bit drivers and operating system code as well as WOW 64, Microsoft's Windows on Windows technology for running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit operating system. WOW 64 acts as a translation layer between 32-bit applications and Windows, but with minimal impact on performance.

What Works, What Doesn't

Essentially, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a 64-bit version of Windows XP Professional SP2, containing enhancements such as enhanced Wi-Fi support, the improved firewall, and Bluetooth support. Virtually all 32-bit Windows applications will work. However, the following won't work with x64:

Software which uses Microsoft .NET Framework 1.1

Software which uses 16-bit installers

Software for Windows 3.1 and MS-DOS

32-bit Device Drivers

32-bit software which uses later versions of .NET Framework must use a 64-bit version; 32-bit versions of .NET Framework cannot be installed on a 64-bit version of Windows.

Those were from a Google search where I typed "how "windows on windows" works."

I have provided my personal experience with the OS, which says that programs are the same if not faster, and that I have had no compatibility problems with programs themselves (installers are another matter). I have provided numerous other sources, both opinion and factual, that imply that there is little to no performance hit. The burden of proof is on you, not me. You do not tell me to do homework. I pay people to do that.

 

[jaffy]

The truth of the matter is that most of the people that use xp 64 right now are only using it so that they can show their other computer nerdy friends that they have it. Nevermind that none of their programs work and most of their hardware is useless now. Games? Forget about it. DVD conversion and capture? Forget about it. So what is the advantage? You can get nerdy dudes to drool on your screen. You can also get nerdy chicks to drool too. On what is up to you.

Umm.. I've been running x64 for 6 months now, and the only programs that did not work for me was a certain older version of iTunes and my old version of O&O defrag. Yes, some hardware is useless, but if you choose your components correctly you should have no probems. My ATI Elite capture card is working fine, thank you And yes, nerdy geek freaks gaze in amazement at my leet xp yo

 

[Ravatar]

The truth of the matter is that most of the people that use xp 64 right now are only using it so that they can show their other computer nerdy friends that they have it. Nevermind that none of their programs work and most of their hardware is useless now. Games? Forget about it. DVD conversion and capture? Forget about it. So what is the advantage? You can get nerdy dudes to drool on your screen. You can also get nerdy chicks to drool too. On what is up to you.

Wait at least another year for more compatibility before trying to use a 64bit OS. For MOST people, they'll still be using 32 bit OSs in another year too. Most people I know that have a 64 bit system / OS also have another system that has 32 bit OS so that they can carry on their normal lives.

This is a pretty ignorant insight... I'm pretty sure you forgot about software developers that like the ability to test their 64-bit code, also people who play games that take advantage of x64 instructions (Half-Life 2, Far Cry, etc)

Oh.. and to the post above referencing .NET 1.1 compatibility. Microsoft has since released the .NET framework 1.1 for x64, so everything works fine now.

 

[stu_redrup]

I'm a proud owner of x64 XP, owned it for 15 months now. I would have to say that it LOVES RAM, got 2GB in my system and everything just flies. I been reading all these posts and people are basically saying that x64 in an x32 environment is crap and a waste of time, well I’ve got something that will make you think. I have a friend that that owns AN EXACT PC SETUP as me, as follows:

AMD 3200+ @ Stock
2GB or RAM
NF4 SLI
6600GT (500/1000) in SLI (8x8 mode)
250GB SATAII

The only thing that makes our systems different is he owns XP MCE, now to the burning truth about x64. We ran both our system on a DEFAULT 3DMARK05 test, all our drivers were set the same and we ran the test. The “stock off” for both systems started at the same time and FINISHED at the same time, but the SCORES WERE TOTALLY DIFFERENT. My friend scored around 5800 while I scored 6200, wtf how could this be? To make sure either one of use we cheating we both checked all the settings and ran the test again, guess what same score. To prove x64 even further we played a single player of BF2 (Karkand map) on each system, settings set to MEDIUM @ 1024*768 with SLI8xAA set in the global driver. To our surprise I was averaging 46FPS while my friend was averaging 39FPS. Now your probably thinking that 7FPS is nothing special, well its special in this case considering that both systems are running on the same settings and there default values.

To put in english for all to understand, x64 XP can give you up to 18% more than a x32 version. There is a logical explanation for this, x64 uses all the lanes in your x64 CPU which increases your bandwidth, which ultimately increases the operation rate of all the hardware/drivers installed (like CPU, RAM, Graphics, HDD).

And to all of those who are bitching about the .net framework. When x64 was first shipped it ONLY contained .net 1.0 x32, so there wasn’t an x64 .net. As people have said that a new x64 .net has come out and that is true (version 2.0) but you guys don’t know the truth behind it. You guys are under the impression that the x64 .net 2.0 can run version 1.1 in x64 mode, WRONG, and please don’t argue with me I own x64 remember. The only version of .net in x64 is version 2.0 (there is no code for versions 1.0 and 1.1) so all programs that require .net 1.1 are running under x32 code.

And one last thing, x64 does use LOTS and LOTs of system resources, my system idles with 440MB of ram being used. The only thing stopping x64 from being the best is the WoW engine, it’s so annoying. Its sensitive to nearly EVERYTHING you want to install, you’ll either get:

Nothing happens and you’re scratching your head.
A CRC/MD5 error
It won’t install at all because the thing is stupid and says it’s not compatible even though it is.
A BSOD (and that’s being nice)
If its in a really happy, and I mean HAPPY, you wont experience any of the about and your thing will run smoothly.

Not to put anybody off x64, I personally think its grate; more people should own it and the faster x32 goes out the better.

 

[Deleted member 143938]

Taken from the Windows XP 64 website word file:

Windows Vista readiness
As I mentioned earlier, 32-bit and 64-bit editions of all versions of Windows Vista will be available. By installing and using Windows XP Pro x64 now, you’re not only getting ready for Windows Vista but also making your transition easier because there will not be support for cross-platform upgrades from Windows XP to Windows Vista