Vista "upgrade" to Win XP 64

[akers]

I am fed up with Vista and want to install Win XP Pro 64. I am 99.9% sure that reformatting and reloading everything is the only answer but just in case ... does anyone know of an easier non-destructive way to load Win 64 over Vista?

Thx

P.S. As with the original XP, I am betting that Vista will be ready for prime time at SP2 at the earliest, although in the case of Vista it might be SP3.

 

[hennessy1]

I would say a fresh install is the best way to go. There will people that will tell you to go with vista x64 instead of xp x64. I say do what you feel your comfortable with. I am running xp x64 now since janurary perfectly fine. There are drivers out there. And for the drivers you cant find they in my cases don't even have vista drivers. So it will be just fine. Just do a clean full format and then put on xp x64. Also most people will say anything lower then vista is a "downgrade" not an "upgrade". But thats their opinion

 

[mechBgon]

Since this is an Operating Systems topic, it is being moved from Windows/PC Software to Operating Systems. Sorry for any inconvenience.

AnandTech Moderator
mechBgon

 

[akers]

OOps, thanks. I should either pay closer attention or learn to read.

 

[n7]

You'll wanna do a clean install.

Though, please enlighten us why you are downgrading to XP 64?

Considering i'd say by far the majority of 64-bit Windows OS users prefer Vista 64, can you tell us what's prompting your migration back?

 

[hennessy1]

If he feels more comfortable in an xp enviroment then let him stay there. Until sp1 for vista is released no need to rush into it. Even after it is release let those bugs be fixed to which there will be just like there was with xp's sp's. xp x64 is a very stable platform. People say there arent the drivers out there that they want. But I've found that in many cases if there isnt a vista driver there isnt a xp x64 driver either. Mind you not all cases but alot of them. I understand that vista is a more secure platform. But until sp1 and the following issues are worked out then no need to rush. XP x64 will provide him with a platform that will ease him into the 64bit world. Not that its a hard transition but for people who can't deal with alot of change then it will be. Like I've said I have been running xp x64 for a long time stable too. Only issues were with hardware itself had nothing to do with the OS.

 

[n7]

Oh, he's more than welcome to use XP 64.

I'm just curious why.

 

[Rilex]

You have to format, no choice. As well, you'll have to reformat when going from XP64 -> anything else. There is no upgrade path.

 

[hennessy1]

You should always format when doing a new os. I know that vista has that upgrade option but I have seen alot of people have problem with it but yet a clean install goes fine for them. Even so w/e you choose backup data anyway.

 

[akers]

I have had a number of problems.

One of the Windows "updates" disabled the on-board sound. I removed the update and it worked again.

The ink level utility for my printer is not supported under Vista (I checked with Epson and they verified it). I am not going to buy a new printer just so I can run Vista.

Whenever I first boot up or restart, Media Payer starts in the background as a "process" and will not run until I use Task Manager to turn it off as a process then launch it as an application. There is probably a fix or workaround but I should not have to spend time figuring it out.

I have had incompatabilities with Photoshop CS3 and Nikon Capture NX. The primary reason I chose a quad core processor is because I post process a LOT of digital photography. If I have problems with two of my three primary applications, I might as well have my old 8088 and DOS 3 back.

I use a smart card to acces the network at the office with VPN. Vista does not support my reader so I have it hooked up to my XP Pro computer. This reader is mandatory so I have no option. It is irrelevant if Vista supports other readers if I cannot use them.

I use Nero 6 Ultra which does not run under Vista. I have to purchase Nero 7. I am using Nero 6 on the old XP Pro machine.

I like to experiment and overclock. There is no way to overclock my 7600GT as long as I am running Vista. Riva Tuner, Coolbits, etc. do not work with Vista.

My fingers are getting tired but I think you get the idea. Why should I have to put up with this garbage when I have available a fast, stable operating system that is far less resource intensive, and is compatable with a greater range of software and hardware than Vista? When Vista's service packs finally gets it to where XP Pro (32 or 64) is with SP2, I will probably move back to Vista.

You should also notice that virtualy every tier one computer company is again offering XP as an extra cost option, I have not bothered to look at the tier two companies. It is also available again on store shelves, and it is selling. That should tell you something right there.

 

[BD2003]

I like to experiment and overclock. There is no way to overclock my 7600GT as long as I am running Vista. Riva Tuner, Coolbits, etc. do not work with Vista.

I cant speak for anything else you've mentioned, but Rivatuner most certainly overclocks my 7600GT quite well.

And I've never really used XP64 so I'm just speculating, but to my understanding it never really caught on. I'm under the impression that even now, theres a lot more Vista64 users than there are XP64 users, and AFAIK the drivers are incompatible with each other - given that, I'd have reason to believe that Vista64 drivers *might* be in better shape than XP64 drivers, but in all actuality I'm just guessing.

But if youre experiencing incompatibilities that interfere with your work, then you should definitely go back to what works and is stable. I just question the logic that XP64 is going to solve your problems...you're probably better off with XP32.

 

[Modelworks]

You will have to do a clean format.
I really like winxp x64.
I think its a better move to go from winxp 32 bit to x64 than vista.
Its very stable and you get the extra memory support.

Its also based on the windows server core kernel and not the xp core.

It never caught on because microsoft didn't want to take away from vista.
They never really promoted it like they did with xp-32bit and vista.

winxp x64 is available for free download from microsoft for a 4 month trial.
http://www.microsoft.com/windo...64bit/facts/trial.mspx



Why not try it out

edit:
Photoshop cs3 runs very nice in winxp x64.

 

[videopho]

NOOOOOOO...
Pls stick with Vista.
Vista is way more stable than x64.
I have had freezes and bsod from time to time with x64 that I can't point my finger at, though not so much on gaming but in IE7 or FF browser, it's happened quite a bit.
In case you're wondering the hardware, rest assured my x64 rig passes Orthos and Memtest all days long if i wanted to.

 

[Modelworks]

Originally posted by: videopho
NOOOOOOO...
Pls stick with Vista.
Vista is way more stable than x64.

Thanks I needed a laugh

 

[postmortemIA]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: videopho
NOOOOOOO...
Pls stick with Vista.
Vista is way more stable than x64.

Thanks I needed a laugh

Indeed, lost of server stuff or workstations that need large mem. support run XP x64 just fine.

 

[akers]

My son has been using XP 64 on two of his personal computers since shortly after it was released. At first drivers were hard to find but that has pretty much been resolved.

He is the head IT guy for the NBA's Golden State Warriors basketball team (yes, he lets me use his season pass when I want to.) He purchased two PCs with Vista to test. They have been reformated and reloaded with XP Pro 32. Two days ago he ordered 75 more Dell 390 PCs and 5 M4300 laptops, all loaded with XP Pro.

That was the last nail in the coffin and the deciding factor in moving up to XP Pro.

 

[bsobel]

Its also based on the windows server core kernel and not the xp core.

This is not correct. Windows server and workstation are on the same source tree. While XP64 came out at the time of Windows 2003 server, it was built using that branch. The equivalent kernel changes are in XP SP2.

XP64 is an orphaned platform. The OP is of course to run whatever he prefers but he shouldn't expect a lot of vendors to support the platform.

 

[bsobel]

Originally posted by: Modelworks

Originally posted by: videopho
NOOOOOOO...
Pls stick with Vista.
Vista is way more stable than x64.

Thanks I needed a laugh

Actually based on crash dump numbers vs installed seats, that statement is accurate. XP64 driver support just isn't there. At least with Vista people are basically being forced to release 64bit drivers if they want their 32bit ones thru the HCL.

 

[hennessy1]

Like Ive said earlier a majority of sites that have a vista x64 driver also have a xp x64 driver. And what Ive also seen is that if there is no vista support yet there is no xp x64 driver. They are completely different support lines for those 2 os but yet there is alot of togetherness because in alot of hardware I use that is the case.

 

[Modelworks]

I haven't had driver problems with x64.

Neither have I, however antedotes aren't facts.

I think alot of the complainers with x64 are gamers.

Very likely, Xp64 is orphaned, but in shops where it's used on supported systems it should be running fine.

There is no way I would put vista in that environment.

We'll leave that at personal preference. I would tend to upgrade those system over the next year (I know you had a bunch of specialized sw you werent sure would run on Vista, but if it's on XP64 it most likely would work fine). Of course, without specifics it's hard to promise that

 

[akers]

BTW, I will no doubt switch back to Vista someday (64 this time) but only after I am certain that all the bugs have been ironed out and it is as least as stable as XP Pro SP2.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: akers
BTW, I will no doubt switch back to Vista someday (64 this time) but only after I am certain that all the bugs have been ironed out and it is as least as stable as XP Pro SP2.

Most of the issues you mentioned in your earlier post have nothing to do with Vista bugs or instability, but with older versions of software and drivers that the vendor has refused to update and you have refused to upgrade. If you insist on sticking to older software, there's no sense in you switching to Vista as you're going to run into the same compatibility headaches down the road.

 

[MrChad]

Originally posted by: akers
You should also notice that virtualy every tier one computer company is again offering XP as an extra cost option, I have not bothered to look at the tier two companies. It is also available again on store shelves, and it is selling. That should tell you something right there.

The needs of corporate IT departments are very different from the needs of home users and enthusiasts. When you need to maintain and support hundreds (if not thousands) of installations and legacy software compatibility is a necessity, you're less likely to adopt the "latest and greatest" operating system.

It took a long time for IT departments to switch from NT 4 to Windows 2000 and again from Windows 2000 to XP. When the current batches of hardware begin to reach their end-of-life and support agreements for XP begin to expire, I expect that more businesses will adopt Vista just as they did XP.

 

[VirtualLarry]

Originally posted by: bsobel

Its also based on the windows server core kernel and not the xp core.

This is not correct. Windows server and workstation are on the same source tree. While XP64 came out at the time of Windows 2003 server, it was built using that branch. The equivalent kernel changes are in XP SP2.

XP64 is an orphaned platform. The OP is of course to run whatever he prefers but he shouldn't expect a lot of vendors to support the platform.

It is correct. Windows XP Pro x64 is based on the Windows Server 2003 R1 code base.

http://support.microsoft.com/kb/888733

The x64-based versions are based on the Windows Server 2003 code tree. Service and support activities for these versions use the Windows Server 2003 tree and do not use the Windows XP client tree.

(This directly implies seperate source code trees (or at least branches), btw.)

All fixes built into Microsoft Windows XP Service Pack 2 (SP2) are included in Microsoft Windows Server 2003 Service Pack 1 (SP1). Additionally, Windows Server 2003 SP1 is the code tree segment on which all Windows x64 editions are based. Therefore, Windows XP Professional x64 Edition does not require Windows XP SP2.

Interestingly, that means that Windows XP Pro x64 supports NUMA, since that is one of the code changes made to the Server 2003 kernel.

Server 2003 kernel changes: http://download.microsoft.com/...78052c42fb/scaling.doc

Surely you're not trying to say that all of the kernel changes implemented in Server 2003, made their way into XP Pro (32-bit) SP2, are you?