Running 32bit xp instead of 64bit

[manowar821]

So, I was thinking about switching back to a 32bit OS, I've been having issues with drivers, and I can use my older 32bit CD key with one of those "performance edition XP", or "Tiny XP" CDs. I thought it would be neat to try out, and I've heard great things about 32bit XP being better with performance, and easier on system resources (not to mention the TinyXP build).

I wont use my Vista Ultimate, I refuse to, even after SP1... In addition to that, I don't like the fact that 64bit XP is technically Server 2003, with some minor changes. As far as I know, 2003 is not as good for gaming as XP is.

I'm not looking to be convinced to stick with 64bit... 😛 I'm just wondering, if I use the 32bit OS, I know it will show less than 4GB of ram... However, it won't go below 3.2GB, right? I think that's an acceptable loss for the price I paid for the RAM, and the performance and compatibility bonus I'll get from the "TinyXP" build.

Danke.

 

[Tarrant64]

What you lose depends on how much GPU memory you have.

XP will use whatever is left after that has been taken into account. Most people don't see below 3.2gb

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't like the fact that 64bit XP is technically Server 2003, with some minor changes. As far as I know, 2003 is not as good for gaming as XP is.

Wrong.

2003 server isn't as good for games because its got video hardware acceleration and other things turned off by default.
XP x64 has everything turned on by default and is just as good as 32bit XP in gaming performance.
Both Nvidia and ATI produce decent 64bit drivers for their video cards, so you're worrying about nothing.

I'm just wondering, if I use the 32bit OS, I know it will show less than 4GB of ram... However, it won't go below 3.2GB, right?

Wrong again.

My rig only showed 3gb of ram available when I upped to 4gb in XP 32bit.
The amount of ram available will depend on what hardware you're using.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Canterwood

Originally posted by: manowar821
I don't like the fact that 64bit XP is technically Server 2003, with some minor changes. As far as I know, 2003 is not as good for gaming as XP is.

Wrong.

2003 server isn't as good for games because its got video hardware acceleration and other things turned off by default.
XP x64 has everything turned on by default and is just as good as 32bit XP in gaming performance.
Both Nvidia and ATI produce decent 64bit drivers for their video cards, so you're worrying about nothing.

I'm just wondering, if I use the 32bit OS, I know it will show less than 4GB of ram... However, it won't go below 3.2GB, right?

Wrong again.

My rig only showed 3gb of ram available when I upped to 4gb in XP 32bit.
The amount of ram available will depend on what hardware you're using.

Well, I was technically correct about the first part, then. 😛 XP64 is built off of the server 2003 system (it's not built from XP), it's just been optimised for home users instead of strictly business.

I didn't know that about the RAM though, so thanks both of you... I've got a 8800GTX so I'll probably see a tiny bit more than 3GB (when you add in all of the small peices of RAM, like in my HD's and such).

 

[Canterwood]

Originally posted by: manowar821
Well, I was technically correct about the first part, then. 😛 XP64 is built off of the server 2003 system (it's not built from XP), it's just been optimised for home users instead of strictly business.

Yes, XP x64 shares the same codebase as 64bit Server 2003, which isn't a bad thing. 🙂

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: manowar821

I wont use my Vista Ultimate, I refuse to, even after SP1...

Danke.

Would you mind mailing me your Vista Ultimate? I will pay shipping.

 

[Nothinman]

Well, I was technically correct about the first part, then. XP64 is built off of the server 2003 system (it's not built from XP), it's just been optimised for home users instead of strictly business.

Not really, I believe that Win2K3 is based on XP SP2 but even then 99% of the code is exactly the same. The only real differences are in default settings and the arbitrary limitations that MS imposes on the different SKUs. Once you go into Win2K3 and enable all of the theme, sound, 3D, etc crap it's pretty much the same thing.

I didn't know that about the RAM though, so thanks both of you... I've got a 8800GTX so I'll probably see a tiny bit more than 3GB (when you add in all of the small peices of RAM, like in my HD's and such).

HDs don't come into play because the cache on them isn't mapped to the system, it's all handled internally by the drive. The only memory that you really need to worry about is whatever's on the video card and the MMIO space for each of the PCI devices in the system.

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: manowar821

I wont use my Vista Ultimate, I refuse to, even after SP1...

Danke.

Would you mind mailing me your Vista Ultimate? I will pay shipping.

Will you pay for it, too? It's the Ultimate Upgrade, both disks, and I'll tell you how to do a full install with the upgrade disk... You just need to trick it. 😀

 

[manowar821]

Originally posted by: Nothinman

Well, I was technically correct about the first part, then. XP64 is built off of the server 2003 system (it's not built from XP), it's just been optimised for home users instead of strictly business.

Not really, I believe that Win2K3 is based on XP SP2 but even then 99% of the code is exactly the same. The only real differences are in default settings and the arbitrary limitations that MS imposes on the different SKUs. Once you go into Win2K3 and enable all of the theme, sound, 3D, etc crap it's pretty much the same thing.

I didn't know that about the RAM though, so thanks both of you... I've got a 8800GTX so I'll probably see a tiny bit more than 3GB (when you add in all of the small peices of RAM, like in my HD's and such).

HDs don't come into play because the cache on them isn't mapped to the system, it's all handled internally by the drive. The only memory that you really need to worry about is whatever's on the video card and the MMIO space for each of the PCI devices in the system.

Hm, that's strange that I've been told HD's cache counts toward it. What about the "X-RAM" on an xtreme gamer X-fi card?

 

[Nothinman]

Hm, that's strange that I've been told HD's cache counts toward it. What about the "X-RAM" on an xtreme gamer X-fi card?

That might count, I can't really say cause I've never wasted money on an X-Fi card.

 

[badnewcastle]

Originally posted by: manowar821

Originally posted by: badnewcastle

Originally posted by: manowar821

I wont use my Vista Ultimate, I refuse to, even after SP1...

Danke.

Would you mind mailing me your Vista Ultimate? I will pay shipping.

Will you pay for it, too? It's the Ultimate Upgrade, both disks, and I'll tell you how to do a full install with the upgrade disk... You just need to trick it. 😀

Sent you a pm.

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: Canterwood
XP x64 has everything turned on by default and is just as good as 32bit XP in gaming performance.
Both Nvidia and ATI produce decent 64bit drivers for their video cards, so you're worrying about nothing.

Yep. I get the same gaming performance in XP x64 as XP.

 

[postmortemIA]

keep in mind that there's 2GB per process default limit for 32-bit windows and for 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS...

 

[bsobel]

Well, I was technically correct about the first part, then. 😛 XP64 is built off of the server 2003 system (it's not built from XP), it's just been optimised for home users instead of strictly business.

This comes up weekly and its wrong. XP64 was the workstation build of roughly the same windows version that the server 2003 build was made from. Saying that XP64 was built from server 2003 is simply wrong. You can just as easily and correctly claim the opposite.

 

[Continuity28]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep in mind that there's 2GB per process default limit for 32-bit windows and for 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS...

32-bit applications that aren't flagged /LARGEADDRESSAWARE anyways. More games are shipping as flagged by default, and you can flag some of your own games to remove this limitation on 64-bit Windows (or 32-bit Windows with a higher user space).

If such an application is flagged, it can use the full 32-bit 4GB of addressing space on 64-bit Windows and a maximum of 3GB on 32-bit Windows (if you increased the user space to 3GB, which won't always work). Most people running 32-bit Windows won't get higher than around 2.8GB of user space, though.

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Continuity28

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep in mind that there's 2GB per process default limit for 32-bit windows and for 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS...

32-bit applications that aren't flagged /LARGEADDRESSAWARE anyways. More games are shipping as flagged by default, and you can flag some of your own games to remove this limitation on 64-bit Windows (or 32-bit Windows with a higher user space).

If such an application is flagged, it can use the full 32-bit 4GB of addressing space on 64-bit Windows and a maximum of 3GB on 32-bit Windows (if you increased the user space to 3GB, which won't always work). Most people running 32-bit Windows won't get higher than around 2.8GB of user space, though.

of course - however most (yeah very vague term) of apps are optimized to not take more than 2GB, because that is what majority of PCs have available.

Then there's Java, which can't allocate more than 2GB with 32-bit JVM..

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: postmortemIA

Originally posted by: Continuity28

Originally posted by: postmortemIA
keep in mind that there's 2GB per process default limit for 32-bit windows and for 32-bit apps in 64-bit OS...

32-bit applications that aren't flagged /LARGEADDRESSAWARE anyways. More games are shipping as flagged by default, and you can flag some of your own games to remove this limitation on 64-bit Windows (or 32-bit Windows with a higher user space).

If such an application is flagged, it can use the full 32-bit 4GB of addressing space on 64-bit Windows and a maximum of 3GB on 32-bit Windows (if you increased the user space to 3GB, which won't always work). Most people running 32-bit Windows won't get higher than around 2.8GB of user space, though.

of course - however most (yeah very vague term) of apps are optimized to not take more than 2GB, because that is what majority of PCs have available.

Then there's Java, which can't allocate more than 2GB with 32-bit JVM..

By 'there is Java' I presume you are refering to Sun's implimentation. Others can access more and are largeaddress aware.