XP pro 32, 64 or Vista 32 or 64?

[ingeborgdot]

How much faster is xp 64 than 32? Is vista 64 ready for prime time yet? Will 64 bit make video editing faster? I have some questions on this and if anyone can answer I would greatly appreciate it. Thanks.

[tiro_uspsss]

the kernal version in XP64 is the same kernal as the one in Server2003 - it is the most stable & fastest windows kernal there is atm... I have tried Server2003 (32bit version) & currently run XP64 - there is no way i would ever go back to XP32...

as for Vista... well what can i say, its a new OS, so it aint gonna be plain sailing, esp. x64 version... I see Vista merely as a means to run DX10 games atm, thats it...

[Andrew LB]

I've been running Vista 64bit for about a week now and prior to that I ran Vista 32-bit for about 8 months and can say for certain that I have had nothing but good driver support in the 64-bit version, everything runs smooth, I can actually use more than 2gb of memory properly, and while some commonly used programs like Firefox are not yet 64-bit.... more and more are making updates so they run native.

[ExodusC]

How much faster is xp 64 than 32?
Windows XP x64 is based on the Windows Server 2003 x64 codebase, not the same codebase as Windows XP x86. It feels faster and more stable than Windows XP x86. There's virtually no compatibility problems with 32-bit applications, and 32-bit applications run natively, so there is no overhead performance loss. Device drivers for Windows XP x64 have become a lot more common. There's almost no reason not to choose it over Windows XP x86 unless you have a major problem, like a missing driver.


Is vista 64 ready for prime time yet?
I won't really comment on that, as I'm not using Vista, but I will say I'm not sure why a 32-bit version of Vista exists...

Will 64 bit make video editing faster?
If the program you are using to edit the video is 64-bit, then it theoretically should run faster, though you may not notice it... Now video encoding, if you're using a 64-bit encoder, it should be significantly faster.

[tiro_uspsss]

How much faster is xp 64 than 32?

howz this for size:

my friend showed me a VERY simple test that demo'd how XP64 is waaaay faster the 32bit... :-

open up calculator (the one that comes with windows)
go to 'View' & change it to 'Scientific'

type in the number 50000 then hit the button on the calc that is: ' n! ' (otherwise known as 'factorial')

do this on a XP32 *AND* a XP64 machine with as similar spec as possible... my friend did it on a C2D system (which obviously has more CPU power) than the other system he did it on, a AMD s939 X2... both rigs have 2GB RAM

the C2D system had XP32.. & did the calculation in approx ~21sec

the AMD X2 system had XP64.. & did the calculation in approx ~7sec !!!

:up:

[PAIIITET]

Vista while else early use only in 2008, IMHO

[64dragon]

howz this for size:

my friend showed me a VERY simple test that demo'd how XP64 is waaaay faster the 32bit... :-

open up calculator (the one that comes with windows)
go to 'View' & change it to 'Scientific'

type in the number 50000 then hit the button on the calc that is: ' n! ' (otherwise known as 'factorial')

the C2D system had XP32.. & did the calculation in approx ~21sec

the AMD X2 system had XP64.. & did the calculation in approx ~7sec !!!

i tried this last night and its true, i'm running both 64 and 32 bit on my rig (2 separate hard drives). in the 32bit it took about 18 seconds (a window even popped up saying the calculation may take awhile) and in 64bit it took about 9 seconds (window did not pop up). i'm gonna use 64bit more often now :up:

i dont care for vista, i tried the 30day trial and it runs too slow, it has to stop and think just to surf the internet. it takes like 1/2 an hr to make my rounds of sites and should take like 10 minutes. switching tabs literally takes 1 minute or so

[RPGWiZaRD]

There's virtually no compatibility problems with 32-bit applications, and 32-bit applications run natively, so there is no overhead performance loss.

I disagree here. I would be using XP x64 if it wasn't for that and it's the opposite you're saying but the difference is very small or none in typical PC games for example but since I'm a BETA tester of PCSX2 ps2 emulator and here I can test CPU/system performance without any impact by my GPU at all depending on setting I use and here I can see the slight loss since it's NOT running natively in 32bit mode.

I agree the kernel feels more responsive and stable though.

[ingeborgdot]

I think I have decided to do a dual boot and keep my xp pro and add vista on my new machine. I have never done it before. What are the recommendations on doing this?

[dengyong]

I think I have decided to do a dual boot and keep my xp pro and add vista on my new machine. I have never done it before. What are the recommendations on doing this?

If you have a second hard drive, just put the disk in while running xp and follow the instructions.
Once installed you will have an option at start up to load vista or xp.

[ingeborgdot]

This will be on a new install.
But now for something else I am debating. I really have some important things that I can't lose. I was wondering how many of you feel about raid 1. I know, I know it is not as fast as raid 0, but I have seen in many reports that it is faster in almost everything else than a single drive.
So, what do you think if I get 2 320gb hdd and partition them for xp and vista. I use a raid 1 to make my system a little more fool proof. Then I add two more 500gb hdd and raid those to use for my videos, pics, docs etc.
Right now I have a 500gb external hdd that I use as backup with acronis and I would use that with this new system to add another line of backup.
What would be your ideal system?

[naokaji]

best is dual boot xp pro / vista home premium 64 bit... just my 2 cents though....

i'm doing it that way.. at first i kept win xp as a back up in case vista wont run something due to compability... but, i very rarely fire up xp anymore for general use, its pretty much just used for benching atm

[ingeborgdot]

So what happens when I use 4gb of ram? Vista 64 handles it fine. What about xp pro?

[Ava1anche]

Only a 64bit OS can handle 4+ gb of ram.

[ingeborgdot]

Right, so if I do a 2 partition dual boot hdd, I would put in 4gb of ram for my vista 64. How will xp pro 32 use it? I know the vista 64 will.

[Ava1anche]

32bit OS will only read 3-3.25 gb depending on the rest of your system. Over all it will run fine.

[ingeborgdot]

If I am going to dual boot using xp 64 and vista 64 what things do I really need to know?
Hardware?
Software?
How do I find out what works?

[Andrew LB]

32bit OS will only read 3-3.25 gb depending on the rest of your system. Over all it will run fine.


With SLI video cards with 640mb ram on each card, Vista 32-bit only saw 2.5gb of ram in my system. Now i'm running a full 6gb and loving it.`

[ingeborgdot]

If I would happen to use 32 bit for my os, is 3gb or 4 just wasting money?

[FatRakoon]

Soon we will all be using 64Bit.

I read earlier on that someone does not know why they bothered with Vista32 and I fully agree on this, but then, I feel that they did it purely to make a bit more money.

Anyway, should you go with 3GB or 4GB when using a 32Bit O/S?

Simple, you go with the 4GB

Look at it logically, if you have 4GB but Windows can only see 3 to 3.5GB then once Windows is loaded up, you have round about 3GB to play with. Tats still giving you a lot more RAM than if you only had 3GB, in which you would be left with just over 2GB to play with.

And, of course RAM is so cheap these days, its hardly worth worrying over... Go for the 4GB.

[ewitte]

howz this for size:

my friend showed me a VERY simple test that demo'd how XP64 is waaaay faster the 32bit... :-

open up calculator (the one that comes with windows)
go to 'View' & change it to 'Scientific'

type in the number 50000 then hit the button on the calc that is: ' n! ' (otherwise known as 'factorial')



Took about 13 seconds on vista x64 and core2 @ 3.3GHz and sucky ram timings. Though it pops up and asks me if I want to continue because it "may" take a long time to do the calculation. Have to love vista and its questioning...

[ewitte]

Vista (both versions really) are about 90-95% functional with newer hardware and software. Its legacy stuff where you will run into the occasional problem. Forget about the x64 version completely if your still running some 16-bit apps.

[64dragon]

Took about 13 seconds on vista x64 and core2 @ 3.3GHz and sucky ram timings. Though it pops up and asks me if I want to continue because it "may" take a long time to do the calculation. Have to love vista and its questioning...

that pop up isnt just a vista thing, i had it come up in 32bit xp

[swolfe]

that pop up isnt just a vista thing, i had it come up in 32bit xp

Same here, but the computer I'm on sucks so hard I actually did quit.