• We’re currently investigating an issue related to the forum theme and styling that is impacting page layout and visual formatting. The problem has been identified, and we are actively working on a resolution. There is no impact to user data or functionality, this is strictly a front-end display issue. We’ll post an update once the fix has been deployed. Thanks for your patience while we get this sorted.

Windows XP 64bit

B

bbEmoney

Member
I want to know If I should install winXP 64 or just winXP pro. What programs won't work and where can I find specific drivers.
 
64bit is designed to run on 64bit processors, 32bit is designed to run on 32 and 64 bit processors. If you have a 64bit processor, I would suggest XP Pro 64bit.
 
I have the Core 2 Extreme processor. But Id like to know if it will be compatiable with my antivirus software and if I can get all the drivers for it.
 
Originally posted by: bbEmoney
I have the Core 2 Extreme processor. But Id like to know if it will be compatiable with my antivirus software and if I can get all the drivers for it.
Click to expand...

If your anti virus software installs on Windows XP, it'll also install on XP 64Bit, as well as any other Windows platform.
 
Originally posted by: LoKe
Originally posted by: bbEmoney
I have the Core 2 Extreme processor. But Id like to know if it will be compatiable with my antivirus software and if I can get all the drivers for it.
Click to expand...

If your anti virus software installs on Windows XP, it'll also install on XP 64Bit, as well as any other Windows platform.
Click to expand...

Not true. I just tried Norton Corp AV 10 and Norton AV 2004 and neither will install for me on XP64bit. Already had driver problems. Flash problems too.

This who 4GB thing is a royal steaming pile of crap. You're damned if you have 4 gigs and either want to use it all, or have maximum capabilities to do what you want. You dont get both.
 
Norton 2004 of course wouldnt work on a 64bit OS that came out in 2006, NAV10 works on my XP64 though, you ran the install.msi/setup.exe file from the SAV64 folder on the Symantec Corp 10 CD?
 
Originally posted by: TG2
Norton 2004 of course wouldnt work on a 64bit OS that came out in 2006, NAV10 works on my XP64 though, you ran the install.msi/setup.exe file from the SAV64 folder on the Symantec Corp 10 CD?
Click to expand...


Yes, but what you installed was a version that is compatible with a X64 bit system. Norton 2006 doesn't work on a X64 bit system and it is a the newest version.

Therefore this statement is still false:

If your anti virus software installs on Windows XP, it'll also install on XP 64Bit, as well as any other Windows platform.
Click to expand...

pcgeek11
 
Originally posted by: bbEmoney
I want to know If I should install winXP 64 or just winXP pro. What programs won't work and where can I find specific drivers.
Click to expand...
No point. Wait for Vista to go 64 bit.
 
Originally posted by: CSMR
Originally posted by: bbEmoney
I want to know If I should install winXP 64 or just winXP pro. What programs won't work and where can I find specific drivers.
Click to expand...
No point. Wait for Vista to go 64 bit.
Click to expand...



Yep, I have to agree. Still got my XP x64 sitting on my shelf. Installed it once and didn't like it. Will wait until Vista improves.
 
It worked fine for me as a base OS but as I started installing my software, I found that a lot of apps didn't work with XP64. Alcohol120% was the first example. Back to the 32 bit version I went.

Funny thing is, I did a bunch of benchmarks with both and noticed no improvement. Of course, those benchmarks apps were 32 bit......
 
If your anti virus software installs on Windows XP, it'll also install on XP 64Bit, as well as any other Windows platform.
Click to expand...

Only if that AV doesn't have a real-time monitor driver, if you just use it to run periodic scans it'll probably be fine but any drivers have to be 64-bit to load in a 64-bit kernel.

This who 4GB thing is a royal steaming pile of crap. You're damned if you have 4 gigs and either want to use it all, or have maximum capabilities to do what you want. You dont get both.
Click to expand...

With Windows you don't get both, with Linux it'll work fine. =)

Alcohol120% was the first example.
Click to expand...

Doesn't Alcohol install a kernel driver to allow the mounting of ISO images? Well then of course it won't work because in order for that driver to work on a 64-bit system it has to be 64-bit too.

Funny thing is, I did a bunch of benchmarks with both and noticed no improvement. Of course, those benchmarks apps were 32 bit......
Click to expand...

I don't see why it's funny, infact it's exactly what I would have expected. Running a 64-bit process doesn't magically make it faster and in many cases it'll actually make it slower and require more memory. If the benchmarks were 64-bit the extra GPRs avaiable in long mode may have sped the benchmarks up a bit, but nothing outrageous.
 
Nothingman; I plan on using Ubuntu Edgy Eft when I get my new 64bit rig. Is there any point in using the 64bit version, or should I just use the 32bit?
 
The only downside to using the 64-bit version is that 32-bit binary-only libraries won't work, namely flash, java (just the browser portion AFAIK) and w32codecs (for things like WMV support). It's possible to install 32-bit versions of your browser, video player, etc into a chroot so so that you can use the 32-bit plugins in them but that's potentially a lot of disk space just so you can watch flash ads and porn. =)

You should probably poke around wiki.ubuntu.com first, chances are someone else has already tried whatever you might want to do and hopefully has posted how they got it to work.
 
Some people have made 32-bit mplayer compatibility packages for 64-bit systems (mplayer32). When you run mplayer32 it loads libraries out of /usr/lib32 and then runs the app and you can watch whatever videos you want. Someone else has done the same for Firefox (Firefox32), which I run whenever I come across a "multimedia site". It has flash and mplayer and everything, with no chroot.
 
And the advantages would be...speed/responsiveness, I assume?
Click to expand...

Yea and the abilitity to address more than 4G of memory physically and virtually, for regular desktop use that's pretty pointless though. Personally, whenever I get around to getting an AMD64 system I'll most likely be running a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, so I get all of my memory and none of the hassle of a 64-bit userspace.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
And the advantages would be...speed/responsiveness, I assume?
Click to expand...

Yea and the abilitity to address more than 4G of memory physically and virtually, for regular desktop use that's pretty pointless though. Personally, whenever I get around to getting an AMD64 system I'll most likely be running a 64-bit kernel and 32-bit userspace, so I get all of my memory and none of the hassle of a 64-bit userspace.
Click to expand...

So you'd install the OS in 32bit, but compile/install the 64bit kernel? Would that work?

I only have 1GB of memory right now, so the cap doesn't really bother me, don't think I'll ever have more than 4.
 
So you'd install the OS in 32bit, but compile/install the 64bit kernel? Would that work?
Click to expand...

Well most likey I'd keep my current 32-bit OS and compile/install a 64-bit kernel after installing the hardware, but yea it'll work since the 64-bit kernel has no problems running 32-bit apps. Not sure how much work it'll be though since I'll need a 64-bit compiler for that.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
So you'd install the OS in 32bit, but compile/install the 64bit kernel? Would that work?
Click to expand...

Well most likey I'd keep my current 32-bit OS and compile/install a 64-bit kernel after installing the hardware, but yea it'll work since the 64-bit kernel has no problems running 32-bit apps. Not sure how much work it'll be though since I'll need a 64-bit compiler for that.
Click to expand...

I might not go through the trouble.
 
I might not go through the trouble.
Click to expand...

Depends on your tolerance for trouble I guess. The worst case scenario I can come up with is that I have to setup a minimal 64-bit chroot to compile the kernel in and with [c]debootstrap that should be simple.
 
Originally posted by: Nothinman
I might not go through the trouble.
Click to expand...

Depends on your tolerance for trouble I guess. The worst case scenario I can come up with is that I have to setup a minimal 64-bit chroot to compile the kernel in and with [c]debootstrap that should be simple.
Click to expand...

I've never done that before, so it would be completely new. I think I'll get everything running, then maybe a little later down the road I'll give that a shot. 😉
 
I've never done that before, so it would be completely new. I think I'll get everything running, then maybe a little later down the road I'll give that a shot.
Click to expand...

Well all you really have to do is create a directory and run debootstrap with some options telling it what distribution and architecture you want and it installs a base system into that directory for you. That's probably the easiest part of the endeavour. =)
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

TRENDING THREADS

Back
Top