How is 64-bit Windows for actual usage compared to normal XP???

[RealityTime]

I was wondering about trying the 64 bit windows. How does it compare performace/usability wise to regular xp ? I use my system mainly as a gaming rig, will it perform on par to using regular xp if I switch to the 64 bit windows ? That is my main concern. Thanks in advance. BTW it seems there are drivers available for all my hardware, nf3 mb, 6800 vid card, realtek audio.... thanks.

 

[nboy22]

As an addition.. I would like to know if you can even run programs in 32 bit mode... if not.. it's probably not really worth it right now.

 

[mechBgon]

Try it and see

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: mechBgon
Try it and see

I've already downloaded it.. I don't want to go through the hassle of re-installing os twice though if it turns out to be a let-down. So I thought I'd get some input first.

 

[NarcoticHobo]

Originally posted by: nboy22
As an addition.. I would like to know if you can even run programs in 32 bit mode... if not.. it's probably not really worth it right now.

I am 90% sure the answer to this is yes.

Now has anyone heard more about the XP pro license trade in agreement?

 

[ViRGE]

It's ok, but not spectacular. The biggest issue I can think of right now is that it sucks down RAM like Jenna Jameson sucks, er, other things. A default bootup is eating nearly half my 1GB of RAM(compared to only 200MB at worse for WinXP32), and it's not any actual program eating it up, so my guess is that it's either DLLs related to WoW64(the virtualization layer that lets WinXP64 run 32bit apps), or just a general lack of optimizations since it's beta. Still, it means you don't have a lot of spare RAM if you run a program that likes to eat RAM. Other problems include:

* ATI's drivers seem to cause this weird image dupe/corruption issue when scrolling up in a window while the taskbar isn't hidden. It can be avoided, but damn if it isn't odd.
* Since there aren't any 64bit versions of Flash or other IE extensions yet, you're going to have to run 32bit IE; in general you won't be able to avoid using 32bit software
* .Net apps dynamically recompile themselves, and I'm having a problem where they're not all turning out right, but I'm also running the VisualStudio Beta 1 Refresh, so YMMV
* There's no SWT Java library, so no Azureus

Overall it's not that bad, but there are a couple of hangups that might be showstoppers depending on what you do. I'd still reccomend running it though if you're not caught in those hangups, since at this point, the more people running it and talking about it, the more feedback there will be for refining it.

 

[RealityTime]

Originally posted by: ViRGE
It's ok, but not spectacular. The biggest issue I can think of right now is that it sucks down RAM like Jenna Jameson sucks, er, other things. A default bootup is eating nearly half my 1GB of RAM(compared to only 200MB at worse for WinXP32), and it's not any actual program eating it up, so my guess is that it's either DLLs related to WoW64(the virtualization layer that lets WinXP64 run 32bit apps), or just a general lack of optimizations since it's beta. Still, it means you don't have a lot of spare RAM if you run a program that likes to eat RAM. Other problems include:

* ATI's drivers seem to cause this weird image dupe/corruption issue when scrolling up in a window while the taskbar isn't hidden. It can be avoided, but damn if it isn't odd.
* Since there aren't any 64bit versions of Flash or other IE extensions yet, you're going to have to run 32bit IE; in general you won't be able to avoid using 32bit software
* .Net apps dynamically recompile themselves, and I'm having a problem where they're not all turning out right, but I'm also running the VisualStudio Beta 1 Refresh, so YMMV
* There's no SWT Java library, so no Azureus

Overall it's not that bad, but there are a couple of hangups that might be showstoppers depending on what you do. I'd still reccomend running it though if you're not caught in those hangups, since at this point, the more people running it and talking about it, the more feedback there will be for refining it.

More specifically if I am going to be gaming with it. Will I show lower fps do you think ?

 

[ViRGE]

As long as it's not a game that going to eat memory like mad, it should be fine. Performance wise everything is about on par with XP32, so memory hits are the only thing that stand to slow down performance.

 

[jkresh]

if you are gaming it depends on the game, some games (ut 2004) already support xp 64, so they will run 5-20% faster, others dont, and they may run a little slower (especial if the extra ram used by the system is required by the game to run)

 

[ViRGE]

Careful when you say UT2004 supports XP64. Epic has a 64bit port of it, but they have not released a Windows version, only Linux versions. And with the Linux versions, the speed is virtually the same.