• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Did Windows XP x64 even make any sense for Microsoft to release ?

13Gigatons

13Gigatons

Diamond Member
Windows XP x64 took a pretty long time and some effort to produce. It is pretty much a niche product and does not have enough drivers. With Vista just 18 months away did it really make any sense for microsoft to make a x64 version of Windows XP. All that time and effort could have been spent trying to get Longhorn/Vista out the door faster. Vista will come in a x64 version and will more then likely have much better suport. On top of that they allow people to upgrade to x64 for free which means people may be less likely to move onto vista.


From a consumer view I'm happy that Windows XP x64 exist because it means that I don't/won't need to run the ever bloated vista version which will need at least 1 gig to run really well. In a business enviroment I may have a lot of machines with 512MB of memory or so, so having a less bloated x64 version is nice and usable.
 
well, they want it out so once drivers become available, it'll be more readily used. I mean, most of us have a 64-bit core of some sorts in our system and if we plan to stick with windows (whether conciously or forced to), it'd be nice to have an OS ready when the drivers start chugging out
 
I'm glad they released it, and I think you explained exactly why they released it: Vista is 18 months away. 64-bit processors are out now. If MS didn't want to be left in the dust they had to release something 64-bit ASAP.

Personally, I've not had problems with x64, beyond the lack of Daemon Tools for x64 and the weird shutdown glitch, which is more of an annoyance than a problem. I'm glad I upgraded, and I recommend anybody else who has major-brand hardware -- particularly nForce onboard stuff -- to upgrade if they can. Besides, you can always dual boot.
 
Originally posted by: 13Gigatons
Windows XP x64 took a pretty long time and some effort to produce. It is pretty much a niche product and does not have enough drivers.
Click to expand...
There is always a sense in the air as though the drivers issue is a Microsoft doing.

Microsoft does not write specific hardware drivers. The information concerning x64 driver writing is out there for a while.

ATI, NVIDIA, and Realtek, made it their business that there will be drivers.

Why the rest of the Marketing Geniuses (mainly from Taiwan) did not write drivers?

Any body knows? (Might be that their Drivers Writers are the same that provides the Lame Tech, Support).

May be if thousands of us would start send angry emails to the manufactures asking for Drivers action will be taken (where is my Cannon Pixima drivers).

:sun:
 
How can MS ensure that Vista/64 will have drivers?

Easy - release XP/64 a year or so beforehand, and have lots of beta versions so bad OEM drivers aren't a big deal. Give driver writers a few years to get the code right before the OS goes mainstream.

Hmm....looks like that's just what they did. 🙂
 
Yeah, it helps lay the ground work for vista by getting the machine rolling. XP64 probably won't ever be a big hit on the consumer market methinks, but its probably worth it just to get some better support out there in time for vista's arrival.
 
also, from a processor perspective, the instruction sets for 32-bit processors and 64-bit processors are completely different. there will be usually more execution instruction available. by implimenting 64-bit in windows xp, you are able to take an already "stable" OS and incorporate new instruction sets to see how it responsed. So basically, by doing this, windows xp became the new testing grounds for vista. use 64-bit in xp to see what type of advantages/disadvantages are available through 64-bit processing.

in addition, as dclive stated, it gives developers more time to develop the drivers. chances are, almost any driver that works in 64-bit xp will work in 64-bit vista. driver development between different version of OS is simple compared to driver development between different processor architectures. as you may have noticed, now that vista has been "announced," more 64-bit drivers are being release and/or worked on for 64-bit xp (aka "testing grounds").
 
Well, Microsoft announced a while ago that Vista is based off of the 5.2 Code base of Windows Server 2003. Let's see here, XP x64 is based off of the 5.2 Code base of Server 2003. See where I am getting at here. I bet it wasn't that hard to change XP x64 into x64 Vista. By having 64bit Windows out there, as everyone else has stated, Manufacturers will have time to release 64 bit compatible drivers for Vista, since they will probably work on both platforms. Also, 64 bit applications will become more mainstream, because now there is a stable windows OS that supports them. Just in time for Vista a year and a half later.

So no, Microsoft probably wouldn't have released XP x64 if they didn't have to, but since there is 64bit supportive hardware out there now, they were pretty much forced to. If you notice, Microsoft only mentions XP x64 on their page as an OS for the PC enthusiast, which are pretty much the only people who will use it, since it is kind of a stable "experimental" OS for them. The average PC user will not know what x64 is, what 64 bit computing is, or even know that this version of Windows even exists. That's probably why it is an OEM version too, since they don't want your average person to buy it from BestBuy and figure out they can't run it on their Dell 2 Ghz Celeron with 128MB of Ram and a 16Mb video card. Only specialty PC stores get the OEM stuff, and usually it's only attainable online, by people who know what they are doing (hopefully).

That's my take on the whole XP x64 gig by MS. Which is why I love it that much more 😛. It's the best OS MS has put out to date. It beats Win2k by a mile IMO.
 
It's the best OS MS has put out to date.
Click to expand...

No doubt about that, and the reason is what you stated that it's based on the improved Windows 2003 code. The "x64" is really just the cherry on top right now for most users.
 
Seems like with most hardware vendors, it's the chicken and the egg syndrome (except for the 3 mentioned earlier) They want the OS released before they write drivers, and MS wants them to write drivers during the beta.
 
Originally posted by: Horsepower
Seems like with most hardware vendors, it's the chicken and the egg syndrome (except for the 3 mentioned earlier) They want the OS released before they write drivers, and MS wants them to write drivers during the beta.
Click to expand...
OS takes years to Design/Upgrade.

Drivers are a matter of day/weeks.

In many cases the hardware OEM gives to the Brands raw drivers to begin with.

Nah, it is Not Chicken and Egg, it is a rotten egg dished by the Hardware manufactures. We eat it because it is easy to distract us we the really important things, like few flashing color LEDS coming from the back of the computer through the fan guard.

:sun:
 
It makes plenty of sense sooner it is out the sooner drivers will be created. I am up and running on it and the only driver I am missing is my printer: Samsun ML-1740.
 
Some people want an OS soon as it is realeased. Mostly just AMD people since Intel was not interested in making 64 bit CPU's. Intel seems to still be in control of the driving seat in the business world.
 
Microsoft is getting us prepared for Vista launch. Without handful of 64 bit tried-and-tested drivers, transition to new platform would bring their ship to grinding halt.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top