So, I've got WinXP64 on the way to me...what the hell can I do with it?

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
I've got a completely legit, full version of WinXP 64-bit on it's way to me...I have an AthlonX2 rig.

What the hell can I do w/this snazzy new operating system? I get PC World, EWeek and all the other reputable publications; they all say that WinXP64 isn't worth the CD it's printed on.

Considering I only paid $12 shipping, I don't mind checking it out.

So...unless I'm running an explicitly coded, 64-bit application, I'll see no benefits, correct? :( Not to mention I can't play any of my games....
 

AkumaX

Lifer
Apr 20, 2000
12,648
4
81
Originally posted by: MichaelD
I've got a completely legit, full version of WinXP 64-bit on it's way to me...I have an AthlonX2 rig.

What the hell can I do w/this snazzy new operating system? I get PC World, EWeek and all the other reputable publications; they all say that WinXP64 isn't worth the CD it's printed on.

Considering I only paid $12 shipping, I don't mind checking it out.

So...unless I'm running an explicitly coded, 64-bit application, I'll see no benefits, correct? :( Not to mention I can't play any of my games....

you should be able to play most of your games
 

MichaelD

Lifer
Jan 16, 2001
31,528
3
76
Originally posted by: Fresh Daemon
Why not try out the 64-bit Far Cry? Run a few benchmarks and compare!

OOOOOOH!!! Is that downloadable? I own a real copy of 32-bit FC (who doesn't, I guess?) :)

I sure wouldn't mind doing that. I live for benchmarks. :D
 

JetBlack69

Diamond Member
Sep 16, 2001
4,580
1
0
Ha, my roommate just did the same thing today. Yeah, you need to download a 64-bit patch for it for free. :)
 

imported_BikeDude

Senior member
May 12, 2004
357
1
0
Originally posted by: MichaelD
So...unless I'm running an explicitly coded, 64-bit application, I'll see no benefits, correct?

Not quite. :)

E.g. Photoshop runs better. If you have lots of memory, XP x64 will be able to let PS allocate more RAM and as a result PS will hit the scratch file(s) less. (I apologise for mentioning this over and over again)
 

Brentx

Senior member
Jun 15, 2005
350
0
0
If you have a Gig+ of memory, you might see a bump in performance, because XP64 deals with memory a lot better. Also, In almost all of the bencmarks I have run when comparing 32bit apps with XPx64 and XP 32bit, I have seen small performance gains. Plus, It's built on the Windows server 2003 code (5.2) of Windows, so it is more secure. Whoever says it is not even worth the CD it's printed on can go jump in a lake. XP x64 is the best version of Windows out there in my book.
 

imported_BikeDude

Senior member
May 12, 2004
357
1
0
Originally posted by: Brentx
XP x64 is the best version of Windows out there in my book.

Absolutely, but there's a lot of (excuse my french) crap software out there. It is amazing, but true: Even new games like Splinter Cell from Ubisoft won't run (because Ubisoft refuses to upgrade the game's old Starforce copy protection system). This will continue to be a problem until the gamers of this world have cornered most of the game distributors' CEOs and given them a good beating with solid bats.
 

DRavisher

Senior member
Aug 3, 2005
202
0
0
Starforce is teh d3vi1 for XP x64 gamers.

I absolutely love my XP x64 setup though. No problems except that I want a USB TV card... I have tried lots of games, and they work flawlessly (unless they have starforce copy protection BS).
 

Oil

Diamond Member
Aug 31, 2005
3,552
5
81
I only have a few problems with x64 but overall I find it better than 32bit XP Pro

A few of my problems:

1) Apps from motherboard CD don't work
2) Programs like Daemon tools and Alcohol 120% do not work yet
3) For some reason, the last update to Steam has lowered FPS to around 15 after 10 minutes of playing
 

ReliableData

Member
Aug 1, 2005
119
0
0
Speaking of the memory problem, if:
On my ASUS A8n-SLI Premium board, i had 4 gig of OCZ Plat (1st revision) 4x 1GB 2-3-2-5 DDR 400.
It really wasn't working that smooth, i narrowed it down to the memory, took out the second pair of gig sticks, and PC runs much better (xp32)

Will getting xp 64 solve the memory problems? or is it a mobo/on-die memory controller issue?
If x64 won't help, will Vista?
The reason i'm asking, is i could put this memory in another system, but i want to know if i might be able to use it in my monster rig again?
 

yukichigai

Diamond Member
Apr 23, 2003
6,404
0
76
Okay, once again, my take on x64.

I have been running x64 for damn near 2 months now. I've yet to find anything about it which makes me reget switching to it, other than a lack of Daemon Tools or anything similar for x64. All of my programs run great on it, some a little better than normal. I haven't found anything that I run which seems to be adversely affected by x64 except for Mozilla, and that's only due to a bizarre interaction between NoScript and 64-bit Java. The one thing I do lament is that there aren't nearly enough 64-bit patches for/versions of programs out there to use, and I've yet to figure out how to compile them on my own from source. (According to MSDN it requires running Visual Studio from the 64-bit compiler environment, both of which I have, but I've yet to find a nice guide that walks you through it once)

For the few programs that have 64-bit versions available -- FarCry, 7-zip, a few others -- the performance boost is noticable and significant. FarCry... good lord. Good f%$#ing lord is all I have to say. You thought that game was eye candy before? (Incidentally, the 64-bit patch can be downloaded for free from the FarCry website) Also something which I didn't initially pick up on, the network code for x64 uses 2k3's code as a base, not XP. While I can't site specifics, I had noticed that x64's network interaction seemed a bit more stable and quick.

The biggest problem with x64 -- besides the lack of Daemon Tools -- is the driver issue, namely how many companies don't have 64-bit versions of their drivers available. My Gigafast HomePlug adaptors and TV tuner card aren't getting any use for this reason. That aside, the big companies -- nVidia, ATI, to an extent Creative, etc. -- have 64-bit drivers for their hardware. My x800 Pro is quite happy, and all my onboard stuff (nForce) works great.

Also, as DRavisher and others mentioned, Starforce protection on older games doesn't work with x64 at all, and neither Starforce nor the game developers seem at all motivated to make patches to address the issue. (Both point the finger at the other as far as who's responsibility it is) What this means is that running x64 you cannot legally play any older Starforce-enabled titles; currently the only option is to use a hack to disable the protection.

But there's like, what, 2 good Starforce-enabled games out there that are affected by this?

Anyway, I would say that barring an all-Starforce game library or an overwhelming amount of offbrand hardware in your rig that x64 is worth running. While it's sort of fringe right now, that won't last. There will be more and more 64-bit drivers, 64-bit programs and other goodies for x64 and the forthcoming Vista x64 as time passes. Might as well get with the program now.
 

Brentx

Senior member
Jun 15, 2005
350
0
0
Drivers, as stated many times, tend to be an issue. But if you have mainstream hardware, like an nVidia or ATI video card with a Via or nvidia mobo Chipset, you should be fine. Luckily for me, I don't use any TV tuner cards, or other different hardware devices on my PC, so everything runs great for me.

To answer ReliableData's question... XPx64 will probably not help the support with your RAM. The memory controllers built into the AMD CPU's tend to have problems with 4Gb of memory. I know the later revisions, like Manchester and Toledo cores in the X2's have had reports of working with 4GB of memory, depending on which stepping of the core you have. I have heard the nForce 4 chipset has also had a few problems with 4Gb of memory, along with the nForce 3 series. That was when the nForce 4 series first came out though. Support for 4GB+ of memory has been somewhat flakely on the consumer products, because if a consumer did need 4Gb or more of memory support they would get an Opteron or Xeon CPU. It is getting better over time, as 4Gb of Ram is becoming more popular. I remember back in the days when they were having problems addressing 8MB of EDO RAM :p
 

imported_BikeDude

Senior member
May 12, 2004
357
1
0
Originally posted by: ReliableData
It really wasn't working that smooth, i narrowed it down to the memory, took out the second pair of gig sticks, and PC runs much better (xp32)

Please define "not working that smooth". Did it crash? Did you experience problems seeing the whole lot? Or did it simply run noticeably slower?

There are some issues with 4GB, XPSP2 and PAE. From http://blogs.msdn.com/carmencr/archive/2004/08/06/210093.aspx:
While you may only get to use a total of 4GB RAM in XP, that doesn?t mean that some of it can?t have a physical address above the 4GB boundary. The BIOS or devices may re-map memory up there with the assumption that it won?t be seen or used. When the PAE kernel starts handing out addresses to those pages of memory, things can get ugly.

So trying x64 is not such a bad idea. Or upgrade your device drivers...