Warning to all attempting 64-bit windows

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
I've been attempting to get my dual boot of 32 and 64-bit XP working all day and a large part of yesterday. MANY problems have occured:

1. NVRAID won't work in the text mode part of the installer, extracting the files out to floppy and trying to get them in with F6 fails.

2. drives with nvraid turned on but not in any array will be seen by the installer and get unpredictable results, including partition table and MBR corruption.

3. Installing 64-bit windows after 32-bit windows onto a DIFFERENT drive than the 32-bit windows is installed on screws up both the MBR and the ntldr file on the 32-bit install.

4. Windows update complains about needing Administrative privileges in 64-bit windows, even if you log out and log in as administrator.

5. Lots of software fails in 64-bit mode. The one that really surprised me is Firefox sets off NX bit protection alerts in 64-bit mode, but not in 32-bit mode, and yes, my 32-bit install has SP2. Edit: just discovered this is because the Data Execution Prevention in XP SP2 is set by default to protect system processes only, not user applications, while 64-bit by default protects everything. Kind of stupid to have applications off by default if you ask me.

6. Installing 64-bit windows on the same drive as 32-bit windows renames your program files directory to "Program Files x86", but does not update the shortcuts to it. The shortcut to IE for example in 32-bit mode will give you an error about it not being a 32-bit binary after you have installed 64-bit windows because Program Files\Internet Explorer\iexplore.exe is now the 64-bit version.

7. CD I/O in 64-bit mode is intermittently sluggish, no idea why on this, especially if you try to extract stuff off CD with 2 programs at once. It's like there is no read-ahead cache for the CD so it seeks back and forth. The hard disk access also slows dramatically while this is happening, bringing the whole system to a crawl.
 

VirtualLarry

No Lifer
Aug 25, 2001
56,570
10,196
126
I thought that all of the new x86-64 versions of Windows', would requiring using GPTs (GUID Partition Tables), which are incompatible with traditional MBR partition tables on the same drive. Is that not true, can the partition tables of WinXP 32-bit and WinXP 64-bit co-exist?

The other question is, the bootloader/ntldr files, normally on a dual-boot system, the files from the "newest" OS get installed onto what MS calls the "system disk" (the drive containing the bootloader). Could that be some of the issue here with the incompatibility?
 
Feb 10, 2000
30,029
67
91
Thanks for the tip. I look forward to using a 64-bit OS, if it runs my existing software, and it doesn't suffer from any major bugs. I'll wait for the official release, and subsequent reviews . . .
 

glugglug

Diamond Member
Jun 9, 2002
5,340
1
81
Originally posted by: VirtualLarry
I thought that all of the new x86-64 versions of Windows', would requiring using GPTs (GUID Partition Tables), which are incompatible with traditional MBR partition tables on the same drive. Is that not true, can the partition tables of WinXP 32-bit and WinXP 64-bit co-exist?

The other question is, the bootloader/ntldr files, normally on a dual-boot system, the files from the "newest" OS get installed onto what MS calls the "system disk" (the drive containing the bootloader). Could that be some of the issue here with the incompatibility?

I got them to coexist on the same drive, but to do so RAID had to be disabled. I installed the 64-bit RAID drivers after installing windows in the hopes that this would make the install compatibile with NVRAID. I tried archiving up the 64-bit install windows & Documents & Settings directories so I could uncompress it after installing 32-bit w/RAID, and manually adding the entry for 64-bit booting to boot.ini. This didn't work, when I try to boot the 64-bit install it says \XP64\WIN32\hal.dll is missing or corrupt, I guess the 64-bit NVRAID drivers get loaded too late in the boot process.

For now I am using 32-bit windows only. Hopefully MS will release a better 64-bit windows, and NVidia better drivers soon.
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: glugglug
Hopefully MS will release a better 64-bit windows, and NVidia better drivers soon.

Microsoft has not released a single 64-bit windows yet. It's all still beta, which is why no one is surprised that you found some big bugs.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
Edit: just discovered this is because the Data Execution Prevention in XP SP2 is set by default to protect system processes only, not user applications, while 64-bit by default protects everything. Kind of stupid to have applications off by default if you ask me.

Prehaps because they're expecting people to start running as a non-admin user for normal use? If so that would make exploiting regular userland apps a lot less fruitfull.

Microsoft has not released a single 64-bit windows yet. It's all still beta, which is why no one is surprised that you found some big bugs.

I guess these ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx ) don't count?
 

SKoprow

Junior Member
May 20, 2004
10
0
0
I have run the past 2 beta candidates of Win XP 64 with no issues. I installed Win XP 32bit first on my primary hard drive and 64 bit on my secondary drive. Works perfect. I don't use raid. This is on a nforce 3 250 based motherboard.

Scott
 

XZeroII

Lifer
Jun 30, 2001
12,572
0
0
Originally posted by: Nothinman
Edit: just discovered this is because the Data Execution Prevention in XP SP2 is set by default to protect system processes only, not user applications, while 64-bit by default protects everything. Kind of stupid to have applications off by default if you ask me.

Prehaps because they're expecting people to start running as a non-admin user for normal use? If so that would make exploiting regular userland apps a lot less fruitfull.

Microsoft has not released a single 64-bit windows yet. It's all still beta, which is why no one is surprised that you found some big bugs.

I guess these ( http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/64bit/default.mspx ) don't count?

I meant consumer Windows, but I stand corrected. You are right.
 

Nothinman

Elite Member
Sep 14, 2001
30,672
0
0
I meant consumer Windows, but I stand corrected. You are right.

Windows is Windows for the most part, all that differentiates server from workstation is the name and some self-imposed restrictions to make you pay more for server.