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.
Windows XP 64bit
- Thread starter bbEmoney
- Start date
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.
If your anti virus software installs on Windows XP, it'll also install on XP 64Bit, as well as any other Windows platform.
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?
Schadenfroh
Elite Member
- Mar 8, 2003
- 38,416
- 4
- 0
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.
sdkoskey
Member
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......
Funny thing is, I did a bunch of benchmarks with both and noticed no improvement. Of course, those benchmarks apps were 32 bit......
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
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.
With Windows you don't get both, with Linux it'll work fine. =)
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.
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?
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
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.
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.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
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.
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.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
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.
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.
Nothinman
Elite Member
- Sep 14, 2001
- 30,672
- 0
- 0
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. =)
TRENDING THREADS
-
Discussion Zen 5 Speculation (EPYC Turin and Strix Point/Granite Ridge - Ryzen 9000)- Started by DisEnchantment
- Replies: 25K
-
Discussion Intel Meteor, Arrow, Lunar & Panther Lakes + WCL Discussion Threads
- Started by Tigerick
- Replies: 23K
-
Discussion Intel current and future Lakes & Rapids thread- Started by TheF34RChannel
- Replies: 23K
-
-
Facebook
Twitter