![[H]ard|Forum](/styles/hardforum/xenforo/logo_dark.png){kind=logo}
-
Some users have recently had their accounts hijacked. It seems that the now defunct EVGA forums might have compromised your password there and seems many are using the same PW here. We would suggest you UPDATE YOUR PASSWORD and TURN ON 2FA for your account here to further secure it. None of the compromised accounts had 2FA turned on.
Once you have enabled 2FA, your account will be updated soon to show a badge, letting other members know that you use 2FA to protect your account. This should be beneficial for everyone that uses FSFT.
freakycody
Gawd
- Joined
- Nov 24, 2003
- Messages
- 924
Just to let you know Steam released a 64bit patch for CS:S (Counterstrike:Source) so yeah CS:S should run good on it.
D
Deleted member 143938
Guest
OK so last question, sorry.. My hard drive messed up today and I have to reinstall windows, so I'm thinking of going 64 this time
So right now lets say I get 170 FPS in CS:S stress test, if I install XP 64 edition and have pretty much the exact same configurtion, would I get higher or lower FPS?
So right now lets say I get 170 FPS in CS:S stress test, if I install XP 64 edition and have pretty much the exact same configurtion, would I get higher or lower FPS?
Tylerdurdened said:
Should be ever so slightly higher, key word being should be. AMD 64-bit processors have more registries in 64-bit mode than in 32-bit mode, which in turn should result in higher performance. Though I doubt it will be noticable either way.
D
Deleted member 143938
Guest
I'm talking about CS:S, which doesn't have a 64 bit port, hence why I asked, since it's the game I play the mostYashu said:
coldpower27
[H]ard|Gawd
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 1,154
It is no longer an issue anymore, both vendors having x86-64 processors out from the top to bottom segments, on desktop with the Pentium 4's, Pentium D's, Core 2 Duo's to AMD's Athlon 64x2, and Athlon 64.
Lord of Shadows
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 3,322
I'm have winx64 and gentoo linux x86-64 running, in windows you will have problems with drivers, make sure you have them for everything. (If your mb is relatively new, you will be fine, printers/scanners/randomcrap is where you will have problems.)
As far as software I havent really had a problem, win64 removed 16bit cpu support, so you wont be able to run outdated software and may have some problems with 32bit programs using an older 16bit installer. As far as wow64 being slow or evil, it isnt, things run how I expect them too and most of my software is 64 bit now.
I'm no linux guru, but other than having to install some x86 emulator software for things like wine, you wont be able to tell a difference. (I think I remember seeing an option in the kernel regarding x86 emulation, but couldnt think of a reason why it would be disabled for any reason.) So yeah...
There is a 64bit version of cs:s, but the 32bit version worked fine on x64 before it existed.
Edit: Just updated my cs:s and checked if it was still 64bit, it was not.
As far as software I havent really had a problem, win64 removed 16bit cpu support, so you wont be able to run outdated software and may have some problems with 32bit programs using an older 16bit installer. As far as wow64 being slow or evil, it isnt, things run how I expect them too and most of my software is 64 bit now.
I'm no linux guru, but other than having to install some x86 emulator software for things like wine, you wont be able to tell a difference. (I think I remember seeing an option in the kernel regarding x86 emulation, but couldnt think of a reason why it would be disabled for any reason.) So yeah...
Tylerdurdened said:
There is a 64bit version of cs:s, but the 32bit version worked fine on x64 before it existed.
Edit: Just updated my cs:s and checked if it was still 64bit, it was not.
D
Deleted member 143938
Guest
How can you tell if its 64 or not?Lord of Shadows said:
Lord of Shadows
2[H]4U
- Joined
- Mar 9, 2004
- Messages
- 3,322
The task manager marks 32bit executables with *32. I remember that all hl2 games use to print 64 bit something something in white text in the upper right at the main menu also.
D
Deleted member 143938
Guest
Well I just got done installing all my programs and Battlefield 2 (CS:S is still downloading) and I don't regret it one bit! This OS is so much faster and more responsive than the 32 bit version and so far BF2 works just as good as it worked on 32 bit, the only bad thing I can see is that task manager reports I have 700000-800000 memory free when in 32 I usually had 900000 free constant
Yashu said:
Do you have a Windows XP 32bit CD? If so then you can upgrade from that. You don't need anything on your hard drive to perform an upgrade installation. So whether or not you have Windows XP Professional x64 Edition installed is irrelevant.
drizzt81 said:
As I have said before many times, and will say again, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition runs faster on the Athlon 64's. They get a speed boost out of it. Athlon 64's and their Opteron counterparts execute 64bit code faster than they do 32bit code. In contrast Intel EM64T CPUs are virtually identical in performance when executing 64bit or 32bit code.
Not only that but you are no longer limited to 4GB of ram. Plus the 64bit games usually run a bit better than their 32bit counterparts and all your 32bit software does work.
If you are buying an OS today, then no, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition costs more than an OEM copy of Windows XP and isn't worth it. This is true because Vista is around the corner. Additionally, if you have hardware that doesn't have drivers for that OS, its best to stick with 32bit Windows XP.
The 64bit OS advantages are numerous and I do consider them compelling, the rest of the industry just needs to catch up with the times and provide additional software and driver development for the platform. In truth I think Windows XP Professional x64 Edition was just a way to start getting hardware and software companies to begin 64bit driver development. Windows Vista x64 will be where we really start to see people making the switch.
Even so I think it will be another three years after Vista's launch before we see a complete conversion. This is not dissimilar to how it was done during the transition from Windows 9x (16/32bit) to full 32bit OS's like Windows 2000 and Windows XP. It took probably 6 years to make that switch. Windows XP Professional x64 Edition has been out for a little over a year, and if Vista only lasts three years, then hopefully the transition will be complete by the end of that time. Making this transition a 4-5 year (rough estimate) one. By that time most of the 32bit machines will have aged out past usefulness and 64bit capable machines should make up over 75% or more of the machines in service by that time.
Be that as it may, how much faster/ slower do 32 bit apps using WoW run? As you mentioned in a thread in the video card forum, there is a distinct lack of driver and application support for XPx64, so why move to an OS that already appears to have been adandoned?Dan_D said:
the OP has a single GB of RAM. If he were using 4GB, then he'd have a reason, provided he did not want to look for WinXP workarounds.Dan_D said:
Which is the reason for the critical phrase in my post "at this point". I am in no way opposed to a 64-bit OS, in fact I'd love it, but unless there is an app the OP uses frequently that sees considerable benefits from running in a 64-bit environment, the lack of driver support and general awkwardness of running XP x64, I do not see a reason to move to XP x64 at this point.Dan_D said:
drizzt81 said:
WoW doesn't seem to hinder performance at all. I've even seen speeds boosts in some applications running it. Not because of the WoW itself, but because the overall system runs better under x64 Edition that the normal XP 32. This was certainly the case with my dual Opteron setup. Additionally, several dual processor and dual core users also report improved performance in multitasking and overall system smoothness with XP x64 Edition which I experienced as well.
If you have 1GB of ram alone, do NOT go to Windows XP x64 Edition. It does take a bit more ram to run as smoothly. Once you have that extra ram, it runs fantastic, but if you don't it sucks. I ram 1GB of ram very breifly under Windows XP x64 Edition when I first put my Opteron together.
Now with my Core 2 Duo, the speed increase that the Athlon 64 enjoyed isn't there. It runs XP 32 and x64 Edtion the same. Again, WoW didn't appear to have any significant performance loss while running 32bit apps.
As far as Windows XP's workarounds for 4GB of memory and more, they flat out suck. The performance loss doesn't make up for the increased amount of memory. PAE just flat out sucks. So unless you needed it for something specific, it isn't recommended.
As far as migrating to Windows XP x64 Edition now, I see no reason to do it either. I needed an OS for my Opteron build, and that is what I chose. Choosing it for a new AMD x86-64 PC is something I'd recommend if you don't need video capture drivers. Simply for the fantastic performance it offers.
For Intel users, and for people with existing XP based machines, I don't recommend it. There is no performance boost, and no performance loss either. Just a couple of minor application installation issues, and the lack of video capture drivers.
As far as the comment about running Windows XP Professional x64 Edition being awkward, well after running it for a year I can't agree. It wasn't awkward at all. It was just like normal Windows XP, except slightly faster.
thanks, I did not know thatDan_D said:
when I ran it, I could not find a working version of flash, which made browsing a lot less fun. Additionally, managing two "program files" directories was a bit of a PITA, especially when running as a non-admin.dan_d said:
drizzt81 said:thanks, I did not know that
when I ran it, I could not find a working version of flash, which made browsing a lot less fun. Additionally, managing two "program files" directories was a bit of a PITA, especially when running as a non-admin.
That's true. I never could get a working of flash for IE 64bit. You can get IE 32bit to work with it, and they both co-exist on the same machine in two different shortcuts. It is important to remember, that IE 64bit is ALWAYS the default browser unless you install Firefox or something like that and change it.
I do agree that the two Program Files folders can be a bit confusing at times.
Maybe you are missing what I was asking.
Back when I ran win2k, I did an upgrade to XP (32), and it worked out pretty well. There weren't really many side effects, and the process was pretty clean.
I don't want to have to reinstall all my stuff, and if I can run the upgrade install to vista 64 from where I am now, I would be happy to try it out first... and if it is too buggy then I can install it fresh, but I would like to try the upgrade install first.
I am not talking about upgrade liscense, but actual upgrade installation.
That is what I want to know. Can it be done?
Yashu said:
Currently, or at least last time I checked, no.
I always advise against upgrade installations anyway, and would never consider doing one myself. You are just asking for problems.
Some things you may not have known about the 2000 to XP process. When you install XP over 2K, it keeps the WINNT folder instead of installing to the Windows Directory. Plus it keeps the basic folder structure that was present in NT. I found some issues with that back in the day. Though it was years ago, back when XP was newer and I am fuzzy on the details.
So I've seen problems with upgrade installations in the past, and do not recommend it.
I know there can be problems, but I am willing to try. I can always install fresh if it didn't work.
I knew all those things and it wasn't an issue. See, I tested this process twice... pre sp1 and also post sp2, both times went smoothly and I still have the second install running on a spare machine. I have even switched motherboards and other hardware several times with that same install. XP is pretty robust when you know what you are doing.
I don't think that a fresh install is necessary on as many occasions as alot of people here. It is just personal preference. Some people reinstall their OS when switching video card brands...
If you know what you are doing... what to look for, what to prune out, what to avoid, you can generally keep an install for a long time.
I keep my system so clean and organised, the upgrade wouldn't be very dangerous I don't think.
Yashu said:
I agree with you. The idea of formatting from a video card installation is rediculous. Motherboard installations however depend on the board. If we are talking about replacing an MSI with an ASUS board using the same chipset, probably not. If we are talking about switching from an X2 or Athlon 64 to a Core 2 Duo, then absolutely.
Nothing is fundamentally different about core2 that needs a reinstall. Uninstall all drivers, including chipset... run drivercleaner, clean the registry of any leftovers, and then attempt to boot the core2 system. If it halts, run a repair installation... 99% of the time, that will get it going, then just install all the new drivers and run windows update to bring everything back in line.
The only files being replaced are chipset specific... and it's a relatively small amount.
It sounds complicated, but most of the work is just window's PnP engine adjusting to all the new PCI IDs and adresses. Yes, this can get messy sometimes... that is the drawback. Throw the bones... if it works you saved alot of time.
Also, don't forget sysprep... I have trouble getting it to work right, but I hear it automates this whole process.
What I cannot figure out is how many people saying you will take a big loss by going to Win XP 64. I wonder how many truely are running XP64. I have two raid 0 set up on the same computer , 1 with XP64 and 1 with XPPRO. I noticed a performance loss with XPPRO that I ended up searching really hard for a DSL modem that was connected via USB that had drivers for XP64. Took me about a month but finally solved that problem. So thank god I only had to run the PRO OS for a month. But back to the point, 200 pt loss in 3DMark06 and on avg 5-7 fps loss in games by going to XPPRO. Well no one will ever convince me to go back to a 32 bit OS because I have seen the speed increase by going to XP64.
Ub3rn00b said:
Thats simply not ture. i can do everything on my 64bit windows that I can on 32 bit windows. I don't use 32bit anymore. All my 32bit stuff works just fine on mine. Maybe you just didn't use the right drivers or something. 64bit windows supports everything I use so I don't know what your talking about I been useing it for a year. Just because you can't afford it don't complane. Its a great OS. You can't bash something you don't have. 64bit and dual core is the future, nothing less and nothing more for a long time. I can say you'll atleast see a 20% speed boost by going 64bit and its nice. Glad I upgraded from XP pro a year ago to this baby.
Yashu said:
Sysprep doesn't automate the process. You can put the system in PnP mode, and it prompts you again for your code. Really the main thing Sysprep does is strip out the SID's and can be used to reseal the OS, or can be used in Factory mode, so that you can build systems, load drivers and force the purchaser to register the software for thier own use. If you run Sysprep and you don't have a corporate copy, you will have to go through product activation again.
well I ran it expecting it would strip out what I needed to make a motherboard switch easy... and it did nothing, well it did some annoying things, but not what I wanted. It booted in the same way if I did it without sysprep.
Sysprep may be useful to some, but it was pointless for me, I am not working on 100 systems... just a couple... it was easier just to do it the old fashioned way.
Sysprep may be useful to some, but it was pointless for me, I am not working on 100 systems... just a couple... it was easier just to do it the old fashioned way.
Yashu said:
Well you have to specifically put it in PnP mode before you hit the reseal option. Then it will more or less act like a fresh install. Even then I've seen problems occur with stubborn device drivers from the old hardware that leaves stuff behind. Generally speaking, it works ok.
yeah, I had never used it before... so I probably got it wrong... when it hit reseal it did not seem to take very long... so it probably didn't do the pnp mode stuff.
I will probably try it again the next time I swap boards, now that you said what I should have checked.
I will probably try it again the next time I swap boards, now that you said what I should have checked.