Windows XP 32bit VS 64bit. Why use?

[taltos1]

Hello,
Can someone quickly outline the the benefits of using a XP pro 64-bit?

Also,
can any program run 64-bit? Or do only specific programs designed for 64bit work properly?

Thanks a lot.

 

[George P Burdell]

There are many, many thread in this forum discussing 32bit v. 64bit in general and XP in particular. Use the search feature and you'll find enough useful information.

 

[Dizz2u]

This is my first post, so please don?t roast me!

Anyway if you have Apps that won?t run in Vista but do run in XP & want to use more than 4gig of RAM, then XP64 would seem like a viable alternative.

However, having said that, I cannot envisage a scenario where a desktop user would require more than 2gig of RAM for XP.

Hope this help, Regards, Dizz

 

[taltos1]

Thanks. I am a graphic designer and I find myself always having 7+ programs open, I believe Photoshop can utilize 64 bit but I cannot find any concrete info. My main concern is that my programs will run not on 64-bit.... I do not really game on my PC.

 

[Sylvanas]

What programs do you use? Most (if not all) widely used graphic design apps run fine in 64bit and you would be much better off with Vista 64 over Xp64- thats where the support is at (every time you see something advertised as 'Vista certified' it means it is functional 32 AND 64bit). The days where 'should I be weary of 64bit' is at an end.

PS. This should probably have been posted in the Operating Systems forum.

 

[Dizz2u]

I have spent quite a bit of time using Photoshop CS3, After Effects CS3 & various VDO editing applications & my experience to date is that all of these apps work just fine in Vista64.

Some 3D apps are even written for 64bit but I hesitate to say optimised, as the real-world difference, between a 32 & a 64bit app in their respective Operating Systems, is in our work-flow too small to be relevant. In other words most ?Full? renders are done as you walk out the door so who cares if your 64bit apps/OS saves you 10mins.

In addition, all things being equal, my evaluations have demonstrated that Vista64 requires significantly more system memory to achieve the same level of performance that can be achieved in XP32. (Please note that I?m neither pro or anti Vista)

If I was building a ?Graphic?s Workstation? from scratch then Vista64 with 8gig of system memory would be an enticing proposition, especially if I was in the habit of leaving so many apps running at the same time.

But why spend the money when you could just modify your habits; run a single graphics application at any one time & XP32 with 2gig of RAM will deliver all the performance you should require?

In my case I have numerous proprietary add-in hardware, that doesn?t have Vista drivers & never will. As this hardware is still useful & disgustingly expensive (SCSI RAID Controllers & VDO Editing Cards) Vista64 is not a real option for us.

1. Are you thinking of a fresh build? Or an upgrade?
2. Is your budget lean or fat?
3. And are you utilising the 3D Acceleration in Photoshop CS3?
4. Not really a question but when your graphics card is a tax deduction you absolutely must play games., lol

I hope some of this helps.
Regards, Dizz

 

[taltos1]

Thanks for the update. I am interested in the "general" state of 64bit OS's. I read some articles they said there is spotty driver support, hardware support etc. but the articles were from 2006. I could not find anything current. Also, are you folks suggesting I use Vista 64 rather then XP 64?

I am thinking of a fresh build.
My budget is moderate
And some 3d and Video editing

Thanks

 

[Winterpool]

I've said before that Microsoft really squandered an opportunity with Vista. Given how much Vista's rep suffered owing to incompatibilities (both hardware and software), sluggishness on older kit, etc, things would not have been that much worse had Vista been released as an x64-only OS. If anything, punters would have blamed the 64-bit transition rather than Vista's (purported) crappiness for any problems. I personally would have been much more indulgent of these issues if I thought they were the inevitable price of a necessary migration (qv Mac OS X).

So far as hardware goes, most people suffer at the hands of Vista's bloat most severely when they've insufficient graphics (if running Aero) and memory -- not the cpu. When Vista was released it was already near-impossible to buy new consumer machines without 64-bit cpus (perhaps Core Duo was the primary exception).

Plus, given how much memory Vista (of all stripes) requires to run smoothly, who thought 32-bit addressing would be sufficient? (No, I don't buy the 640 KB myth!)

As to the OP: if you're building a brand new machine, I'd say go with Vista x64. But open a thread in 'General Hardware', follow the sticky guidelines (especially specify what you mean by 'moderate' budget), and see what others recommend. I'm not at all sure how well video and graphics-editing apps work in an x64 environment, so you should be sure to specify what applications you (plan to) use as well.

 

[BadOmen]

I have xp64 and must say that it wasn't quite a smooth change:

- My M-Audio equipment doesn't work anymore due to lack of drivers.
- Yamaha Usb Mixers don't have drivers either (although they are supposed to launch them sometime this year).
- It seems that Plextor don't have drivers for their video capture stuff either.
- Norton Internet Security doesn't have xp64 versions.
- I have lots of problems importing video on Adobe Premiere CS3

I keep using it because of the ammount of memory I have, but seriously, it's a pain to have a xp64.

 

[Dizz2u]

BadOmen, experience is the major reason why we have not transitioned to either XP64 or Vista64, but as to the ?general state of 64bit OS? thing are fine, for most new hardware & apps.

By fine I mean they work, whether or not they have been optimised so that they are multi-threaded & can efficiently use current quad-core CPUs or have been written natively in 64bit, is an entirely different story, however some 3D apps are, but little else.

There is nothing special about Photoshop CS3 that would make it run better in a 64bit environment, it is not coded in 64bit & it is not truly multi-threaded, however it has begun to take advantage of your graphics card, which is a big step in the right direction.

If you don?t have legacy 3rd party hardware to support & your doing a fresh build, then I concur with Winterpool & Sylvanas, Vista64 is definitely the way to go & if you?re into graphics don?t be shy with the RAM or your graphics card.

Regards, Dizz

 

[mb]

I remember trying XP64 not too long ago.. it was horrible. Almost no vendors had any support for it. Now with 64bit Vista, it's smooth sailing.

 

[BadOmen]

I'm pretty sure x64 works fine, but the total lack of drivers and application is making me crazy.

Once you install xp64, you spent days sending emails to softwarehouses, asking if their product support x64. Because not only they usually don't, but they don't even mention it on their websites either. And quite a few programs you used in your old 32-bit are now... ta da, useless!

M-Audio's new hardware doesn't have x64 drivers either.

It's just VERY frustrating.

And I'm conservative😀 I don't like the wussy visual of Vista.:laugh: