Should I Install 32 or 64-bit XP?

Discussion in 'OT Technology' started by TALLandNcharge, Mar 22, 2008.

  1. TALLandNcharge

    TALLandNcharge New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    I have a notebook with an Intel Core 2 Duo T7200 CPU. I'm pretty sure that it is a 64-bit processor. I have the option to install 32 or 64-bit XP. Which one should I do? Are there still a lot of programs that don't support 64-bit?
     
  2. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
    if its XP go with 32 bit.

    Finding drivers for XP64 will drive you nuts
     
  3. TALLandNcharge

    TALLandNcharge New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 18, 2007
    Messages:
    425
    Likes Received:
    0
    Is it just the drivers? What about software (iTunes, AVG, etc.)?
     
  4. Chris

    Chris New Member

    Joined:
    Oct 27, 2003
    Messages:
    14,711
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Texas on my mind
    for the apps its a toss up, maybe, maybe not

    the only real benefit of using a 64 bit OS is support for more than 4GB of RAM, and I doubt you will be putting that much in a laptop

    save yourself a boatload of headaches and just use the 32 bit
     
  5. pyehac

    pyehac if she's old enough to cross the street, she's old

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hawaii
    64bit first. After you throw your computer around, install 32bit.
     
  6. 32bit. Drivers will be a nightmare, as previously stated. Also, if you're looking to use any sort of utilities or administration tools you might have a problem. Since XP x64 is built on the Server 2003 kernel there are a lot of utilities that are for XP that won't work with it. Strangely, many Server 2003 utilities won't work with it either, as it's not actually Server 2003. It's really a nightmare, and unless you have a good reason to need the x64 you're waaaaaay better off with x86.
     
  7. Doomsday

    Doomsday XXX

    Joined:
    Mar 14, 2000
    Messages:
    14,902
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Minnesota
    64-bit if you run 64-bit apps
    if not, then 32-bit
     
  8. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    i'd go 16-bit or 128-bit. screw the usuals!
     
  9. dakayus

    dakayus New Member

    Joined:
    Dec 19, 2007
    Messages:
    54
    Likes Received:
    0
    If you think that x64 runs twice as fast as 32, it doesn't. It's better, but not anywhere close to double. Also drivers is a complete bitch to find, as everyone previously stated.
     
  10. pyehac

    pyehac if she's old enough to cross the street, she's old

    Joined:
    Sep 20, 2006
    Messages:
    5,230
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Hawaii
    I had a chance to build and install a machine that had Vista 64 (basic :mamoru: ). It wasn't that bad, since all of the drivers were supplied with the motherboard's install disc. Since it was basic, it scored a 1.0 on the rating :rofl:

    (the machine had a quad core Intel processor, 4gb of RAM, and a 750gb HD)
     
  11. michelin man

    michelin man IDB Construction

    Joined:
    Jul 22, 2001
    Messages:
    11,660
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Austin
    ive been running x64 on my home "server" and it has crashed/locked up on average once a week.
     
  12. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    i've never heard any report that 64-bit windows runs any faster. i've only seen benchmarks that show the 64-bit versions run slower. 64-bit is pretty much all about memory and thus performance at the high-end where databases and multiple users can benefit from much larger memory datasets. for a single user you will see almost no benefit to running 64-bit.
     
  13. SeeVinceRun

    SeeVinceRun Currently In Prison OT Supporter

    Joined:
    Apr 11, 2005
    Messages:
    1,124
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Kansas City, MO
    Im running 64 bit because Im using 4gigs of ram, but when I only had a 1 gig stick, It seemed snappier compared to XP 32bit. Other than drivers being slightly harder to find, but on most major stuff it isnt an issue. That being said, there isnt any reason to run it unless you have a shit ton of ram.
     
  14. skinjob

    skinjob Active Member

    Joined:
    Jan 6, 2001
    Messages:
    2,337
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    Aztlán
    The only reason to run a 64-bit OS is if you need to run a 64-bit app. Regardless of how much memory you have, 32-bit user-mode apps in 64-bit windows are still subject to the 2-3GB user-mode address space limitation.
     
  15. trouphaz

    trouphaz New Member

    Joined:
    Sep 22, 2003
    Messages:
    2,666
    Likes Received:
    0
    yeah, but is that 2-3Gb per app or 2-3Gb shared between all 32-bit apps?
     
  16. R-Type

    R-Type The Bydo Empire must die!

    Joined:
    Aug 2, 2002
    Messages:
    1,049
    Likes Received:
    0
    Location:
    CT
    There's more to x86_64 than larger addressing and register sizes. You gain an additional 8 gp registers and another 8 SIMD registers which can make quite a difference for cpu intensive applications, giving a 15-35% performance boost over the same app built for IA32. I used to do a lot of quake3 mapping for a mod, so I built the map compiler as an x86_64 binary. I noticed a palpable improvement in speed, avging about 30%. This was on an amd x2 system on both windows and linux.

    It really depends on what you want to do with the machine. The closest analog to map compiles that most would see a boost in would be video encoding, but only if the encoders are x86_64 native (most off-the-shelf ones are not). IA32 apps tend to run the same or slightly slower than they would under IA32 windows, and integration is largely seemless. Microsoft includes all the old 32bit libraries and the wow64 wrapper in an x86_64 install. You do lose the old 16bit support that IA32 windows had...not that most people would miss that. If you need dos emulation, DosBox is a much better alternative.

    I believe each 32bit process gets its own 4GB. iirc, there's a /largememoryaware switch for the c++ compiler in vs. The app would need to be built with that to see it all.
     

Share This Page