XP x64 usability

K

kevineugenius

[H]ard|Gawd
Joined
Dec 9, 2006
Messages
1,415
Back when it first hit, XP x64 had so many problems that I just ignored it. Then Vista came out, and it had plenty of problems but I didn't really ignore it, knowing that it wouldn't just "go away". After SP1, Vista was basically fixed, in my opinion, and I havent had problems with it at all. However, XP will always be faster than Vista. Did a similar service pack release for XP x64 that made it work properly? Is there enough driver support available to make it a viable OS?
 
Here we go again... ;)

XP Pro x64 never had real problems - the problems existed with driver support so the fault cannot lie with the OS. I started running XP Pro x64 the day it came out and that was on a hand built machine using name brand components (read: not cheap pieces of shit with manufacturers you've never heard of and no support behind their products, meaning drivers) and I never had a problem I would even bother to mention to another person, especially not online.

Not one problem in nearly 4 years of using it as my primary day to day OS.

All that changed when I got my hands on Windows 7 last October (and no, I don't mean yesterday October, I mean October 2008) and Windows 7 has been my day to day OS ever since.

I still have intentions of building an x264 encoding monster boxen later this year but it looks like I'll have to wait till early 2010 now, and the OS I'll have on it is XP Pro x64. Since it's going to be a machine on a table in my apartment but not an actual daily use workstation, there's no reason to put Windows 7 on it and waste another key when I have my original XP Pro x64 VLK edition (from a small startup I helped off the ground) ready to roll.

All I'm going to say is this, so take it as you want (and many people around here know me and my claims but I can back 'em up unlike many others - this is just a new persona for me but I've been around here since this forum started):

If I take my current box which is a Q8400, 2GB of DDR2 667 5-5-5-12 (it's DDR2 800 but runs at 667 to match the FSB:RAM 1:1), PNY GeForce 9500GT 1GB, WD 1TB "Green" 32MB 5400 rpm drive, LG Blu-ray/HD DVD/DVD/CD combo (yes it burns Blu-rays), and other components sitting on a Gigabyte G41M-ES2H mobo...

And I install XP Pro x64 on it (with SATA drivers slipstreamed, of course), and do some tests, then I wipe it clean and install: XP Pro x86, 2K3 x86, 2K3 x64, Vista x86, Vista x64, 2K8 R2 x64, Windows 7 x86, or Windows 7 x64...

When the results are compiled, the XP Pro x64 benchmarks will be above the rest, period.

I know this because I've actually done it many times, on a variety of hardware I've owned and used and worked on over the past 6 months, and XP Pro x64 - for the sheer underlying root OS itself - wins.

I don't play games, could care less about them, but when it comes to serious hardcore number crunching and processing (3DStudio + Maya + some other 3D rendering apps), XP Pro x64 maintains a decent 10-17% lead over the "competition" that I will always go back to using it for.

On the x264 encoding monster I plan to build, I already know the encoding process will finish faster just because of the OS itself, but when I slap an i7 920 in it, 12-24GB of DDR3 working in proper triple channel, with a potential upgrade to a 6 core Gulftown in 2010 at some point... hell yes it'll be fast. ;)

XP Pro x64 is a viable OS, still to this day and for quite some time to come. It all depends on you, your needs, and what you'd like to get done. Windows 7 is awesome, period, there is no doubting or denying it - anyone that says it isn't is just kidding themselves and looking to pick a fight, basically. But XP Pro x64 isn't for everyone, it never was designed to be for just anyone, it never will be.

Those of us that use it to this day for a variety of reasons know this and we will continue to use it as the situations require. But for your average Joe (inside joke), XP Pro x64 may not be the best day-to-day OS anymore. It's not for me - and I say that only for myself.

You have to do some research and testing and decide for yourself which OS is "best" for you because there is no "best" OS for everyone in every single situation.

'Nuff typed.
 
I still run xp x64. The drivers are there now. I might upgrade sometime to 7. Xp x64 just does everything so far like a charm.
 
XP 64

Windows 2000

Vista

All 3 are red headed step child OS's that were short lived and never allowed to reach their full potential.
 
Also, Windows server 2003 x64 and XP x64 share the same driver architecture.

Any driver for server 2003 (64) will work for 64bit XP.
 
WAS using it for some time i managed to find drivers for everything. The only annoying thing was itunes deliberately made to not work on it. (although that could be a blessing considering what a POS itunes is)
 
kevineugenius said:
Back when it first hit, XP x64 had so many problems that I just ignored it. Then Vista came out, and it had plenty of problems but I didn't really ignore it, knowing that it wouldn't just "go away". After SP1, Vista was basically fixed, in my opinion, and I havent had problems with it at all. However, XP will always be faster than Vista. Did a similar service pack release for XP x64 that made it work properly? Is there enough driver support available to make it a viable OS?
Click to expand...
XP x64 is a good OS for a limited amount of things. I would absolutely never use it for a day to day OS though, just simply poor compatibility with a lot of software for me. The time I tested it, 2 out of the 3 titles I tested on it would not run. If you had some type of specific rendering or other program that you know works on it and you want a system just for that, then it would be a great choice, but absolutely not day to day usage.
 
So, basically everyone is going to shirk the actual question and go off on their own crusade-tangent.

@Snowknight: kudos to you and your reports. From where I sit right now, a machine with 2gb RAM and a 2x2.0 proc beats the socks off of a 12gb RAM 4x2.3 proc. Guess which one has XP on it?

@sub.genius: take a grammar class and learn how to formulate an essay. I have no idea what your point actually is, other than you like XP x64 and it apparently peeves you off to have someone say anything against it. "XP x64 never had problems, the problems were due to lack of drivers". Well, what does that mean to the end user? Same thing I said originally, XP x64 had problems. I didn't say it was the root, but the problems were there.

@conker: thanks

@deadjasper: I disagree entirely, but I think that is mainly due to your confusion about certain cliches. Red-headed step-children are supposed to get beaten, not prematurely killed. Win2k was a work of art. I'd still be using it if it were compatible.

@deathfrombelow: yay for Vista, it can run winrar faster and shut off faster. This is me not caring. I'm not here saying that Vista is without merit, I defended it WAY before SP1 and WAY before anyone else could muster any givadam. The reason Win7 even exists is because of bad publicity that Vista was loaded with. Had no one bashed Vista in the first place, Win7 would have been called "Windows Vista Service Pack 2". But, in order to make money, they had to rename it and make it look different because no one wants to buy Vista. I own 4 legal copies of Vista, I'll get Win7 as soon as I can. Your benchmarks are only conclusive in one area: CPU performance. I have no idea why that is. When I swapped over my laptop from XP to Vista, my framerates dropped like a rock. I added more RAM to offset it a little, but it's still slower. Maybe you're just lucky. I guarantee none of my XP machines shut down slower than a Vista machine either, it's 100% the opposite in this building.

@jeremyshaw: thats kinda cool, and good to know besides. I don't know that any of my hardware would have a server driver and not an XP x64 driver as none of my components are server material, but it could happen.

@DeFex: Truth. iTunes = die in a fire.

@bigdogchris: What kind of software do you mean? I really don't run anything... productive. I may need an office suite from time to time, other than that it's Steam apps and IE8.

I basically want the speed of the XP Pro that I know and love, but it's gotten slower lately, hasn't it? Perhaps too much bloatware, background downloaders, service packs, etc. So, in a nutshell, I want XP and the ability to have extra RAM to try and counter the most recent onset of crap that updates keep giving us. If that's not a feasible solution, that's fine. I'll have Win7 in January.
 
Vista is not just faster at winrar and shutting down:
http://www.driverheaven.net/articles.php?articleid=137 - about a dozen game benchmarks, and Win 7 AND Vista trounce XP Pro x64 in every one of them.

http://www.firingsquad.com/hardware/windows_7_gaming/ - here are some more game benchmarks and Vista and Win 7 pretty much win here too, against XP and XP Pro x64.

http://www.testfreaks.com/blog/information/windows-xp-vs-vista-vs-7/ - here's another where Vista and Win 7 (64-bit) beat XP (32-bit). [The author has an erroneous conclusion that says XP wins but if you add up the percentages and average them, Vista and Win 7 are faster, the author admits his mistake in the comments.]

Pretty much every benchmark I see is similar, Win 7 *and* Vista beat XP in 32-bit and 64-bit flavors, but believe what you like. If your system was slower after using Vista, well maybe you had an isolated error or who knows, but in general I'm sure that's not the case.

But to answer your original question, I'm sure XP Pro x64 is perfectly usable, just check to see if all your hardware has drivers first.
 
I'm checking the date on this thread, and very surprised to see it is from 2009. Vista overcame XP's speed as Vista and it's drivers matured. Facts are facts, whether you choose to believe them or not. You're failure to endorse them doesn't suddenly remove them from being fact. That being said, Windows 7 surpasses both of them, with better added features and usability. It also scales down to lower requirements better than Vista did. So, Windows 7 is your answer.
 
Next person to mention Windows 7 gets an e-slap. It was never part of the original question/comparison.

This weekend I'll run some tests of my own, though I don't have XP x64 to play with--just good ol' x32. You can also keep telling me to not ignore the "facts" ... that's exactly what I'm doing. My computer has no bloatware, no spyware, no servers running in the background, no torrents, no multithreaded apps, no encoding, no nothing that is high tech. I want my load times to go back to near instant in WoW, I want explosions to not cause my system to chug in shooters. Whether you can admit it or not, when I ran on XP, none of that kind of stuff ever happened. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but looking at the "facts" my computer now is 8 zillion times faster than it used to be. It just doesn't feel faster. I dunno what else I can say. Original question has been answered, I'm done bickering about how cool Win 7 is and how lame and outdated XP is.
 
I used XP64 as a gaming rig OS through 2007, and didn't run into any problems. Mind you it was *just* a gaming rig with little on it that wasn't gaming related. It was an E6600-based system on an Intel 865-based motherboard with an nVidia 7950GT and Creative X-fi. The drivers for all of the parts were (at the time) current. Games I played included Tribes 2, Final Fantasy XI, Orange Box (TF2, Portal), and a couple of the early x64-specific things like Unreal Tournament 2004 x64 and Farcry x64.

I tried XP64 on a laptop I have, but I was never able to find a working driver for the webcam or Infrared.
 
kevineugenius said:
Next person to mention Windows 7 gets an e-slap. It was never part of the original question/comparison.

This weekend I'll run some tests of my own, though I don't have XP x64 to play with--just good ol' x32. You can also keep telling me to not ignore the "facts" ... that's exactly what I'm doing. My computer has no bloatware, no spyware, no servers running in the background, no torrents, no multithreaded apps, no encoding, no nothing that is high tech. I want my load times to go back to near instant in WoW, I want explosions to not cause my system to chug in shooters. Whether you can admit it or not, when I ran on XP, none of that kind of stuff ever happened. Maybe I'm barking up the wrong tree, but looking at the "facts" my computer now is 8 zillion times faster than it used to be. It just doesn't feel faster. I dunno what else I can say. Original question has been answered, I'm done bickering about how cool Win 7 is and how lame and outdated XP is.
Click to expand...

I guess what I'm thinking with others is way you're having these issues. Yes, I'm running Windows 6+1 (see no mention of you know what?) and I don't have the issues you're talking about. Heck even my tx2 tablet running 6+1 can play WoW okay.
 
I ran XP x64 for some years before Vista and Seven were released and never had a problem with it, and i am a semi-hardcore gamer :p
 
kevineugenius said:
Next person to mention Windows 7 gets an e-slap. It was never part of the original question/comparison.
Click to expand...

You asked if 64-bit XP is a "viable OS." The answer is "probably not" since it has less hardware support than Vista/7 and you had issues getting Vista to work.

If you strike me down I shall become more powerful than you can possibly imagine.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top