Vista Vs. XP Pro x64

GarretSidzaka · Jul 9, 2007

I just upgraded my athalon x64 processor to Windows XP Pro x64 edition. And coming up from 32 bit XP home, it made me not want to throw my processor away anymore.

I also took a look at a friends computer with vista, and comeon guys, the CPU was running at 10% after optimization just to keep up the desktop! And it looked like Dr. Seuss GUI with everything in BIG COLORFUL PICTURES

Are you running xp x64 or vista for your 64 bit needs? Or do you plan on getting either?

Asher · Jul 9, 2007

Why would you run 64-bit Windows? Do you need 6 or 8 GB of RAM, or run massive database servers on it?

3 EMS · Jul 9, 2007

I want to try XP 64 bit. I won't do Vista untill I have to.

Asher said:
Why would you run 64-bit Windows? Do you need 6 or 8 GB of RAM, or run massive database servers on it?

Your right. I wonder if I can go back to 16 bit. They keep making bigger and bigger programs and eventually you are going to need it.

GVBN · Jul 9, 2007

I don't need 64-bit

GarretSidzaka · Jul 9, 2007

you know, running a 2.0 ghz. AMD athlon 3200+ x64 for my processor, i was having mad CPU spikes all the time running 32 bit XP Home Edition.

to be honest with you, the performance increase was noticable (not humougous though

) and will help me tide the time till i get a dual core AMD x64.

so far the only con was my old skool canon printer driver won't even install, and canon never bothered to release a new driver. And alot of software doesn't have x64 support (not so true of open source though)

Comraddict · Jul 9, 2007

GarretSidzaka said:
you know, running a 2.0 ghz. AMD athlon 3200+ x64 for my processor, i was having mad CPU spikes all the time running 32 bit XP Home Edition.

to be honest with you, the performance increase was noticable (not humougous though ) and will help me tide the time till i get a dual core AMD x64.

so far the only con was my old skool canon printer driver won't even install, and canon never bothered to release a new driver. And alot of software doesn't have x64 support (not so true of open source though)

Performance differece was duet o fact that you installed fresh copy of windows.

Asher · Jul 10, 2007

3 EMS said:
I want to try XP 64 bit. I won't do Vista untill I have to.

Your right. I wonder if I can go back to 16 bit. They keep making bigger and bigger programs and eventually you are going to need it.

And when you need it, then you upgrade. As someone who has experimented with XP x64 and 64-bit Vista, it's nothing but a headache right now. Driver support is incomplete, performance suffers, applications are incompatible, etc.

Don't upgrade unless you've got greater than 4GB of RAM.

Zelig · Jul 10, 2007

Comraddict said:
Performance differece was duet o fact that you installed fresh copy of windows.

Likely cause.

I ran XP X64 for about 5 months, I can confidently say it's a mess of an OS, support is woefully inadequate, with almost no gains. Sure, you can have more memory installed, but good luck finding many programs that actually work on XP X64 that can use the extra memory.

On the other hand, I've been running Vista 64-bit for the past 6 months or so, and it's been a much better experience. Old hardware has much better support than XP x64, and new hardware is forced to provide 64-bit drivers in order to get WHQL certification from Microsoft.

Multi-processor support and support for large amounts of ram in Vista 64-bit really make it shine, XP x64 justs wastes any extra resources you aren't using, while Vista actually puts them to good use.

Asher said:
Why would you run 64-bit Windows? Do you need 6 or 8 GB of RAM, or run massive database servers on it?

4 GB doesn't work either in 32-bit Windows. New games such as Supreme Commander and Stalker perform visibly better in Vista 64-bit than 32-bit.

GarretSidzaka · Jul 10, 2007

Comraddict said:
Performance differece was duet o fact that you installed fresh copy of windows.

I was way early for a format. less than a month.

GarretSidzaka · Jul 10, 2007

Zelig said:
Likely cause.

I ran XP X64 for about 5 months, I can confidently say it's a mess of an OS, support is woefully inadequate, with almost no gains. Sure, you can have more memory installed, but good luck finding many programs that actually work on XP X64 that can use the extra memory.

On the other hand, I've been running Vista 64-bit for the past 6 months or so, and it's been a much better experience. Old hardware has much better support than XP x64, and new hardware is forced to provide 64-bit drivers in order to get WHQL certification from Microsoft.

Multi-processor support and support for large amounts of ram in Vista 64-bit really make it shine, XP x64 justs wastes any extra resources you aren't using, while Vista actually puts them to good use.

4 GB doesn't work either in 32-bit Windows. New games such as Supreme Commander and Stalker perform visibly better in Vista 64-bit than 32-bit.

the machine i saw running vista was at 10% CPU while idling. and i don't like the way Microsoft "dumbs down" the edition with extraneous graphics

Speedo · Jul 10, 2007

the machine i saw running vista was at 10% CPU while idling

Then it was a very inadequate machine, or loaded with background processes.

i don't like the way Microsoft "dumbs down" the edition with extraneous graphics

So turn them off.

Under the hood Vista is superior to XP in numerous ways, it just lacks the driver maturity to show it.

Asher · Jul 10, 2007

Zelig said:
4 GB doesn't work either in 32-bit Windows.

Explain...I've got 4GB in Windows Vista (32-bit).

New games such as Supreme Commander and Stalker perform visibly better in Vista 64-bit than 32-bit.

Where are these benchmarks? I've noticed zero difference in those games. I did notice performance slowdowns in Lord of the Rings Online when I tried it (particularly terrible loading times).

Asher · Jul 10, 2007

GarretSidzaka said:
the machine i saw running vista was at 10% CPU while idling. and i don't like the way Microsoft "dumbs down" the edition with extraneous graphics

Actually, the interface (WPF) in Vista (when using Aero) uses far less CPU and system RAM than the interface (GDI+) in XP.

Speedo · Jul 10, 2007

Explain...I've got 4GB in Windows Vista (32-bit).

You may have it, but a good bit of it is wasted. 32 bit Windows can address 4GB total memory, that is system memory + video memory + BIOS + PCI, etc. There is a hard limit of 3.5GB addressable system memory, but your actual amount will be 4GB - (the sum of all the others).

Being that you have a video card with 768MB memory, then only somewhat around 3.2GB of your system memory is useable.

Asher · Jul 10, 2007

Yeah, I know that. I'm still nowhere near using all of it, and if and when I do need all of it, hopefully 64-bit driver and software support is more reasonably complete.

To say "4GB doesn't work in 32-bit Windows" is not really true. It works better than 4GB in 64-bit Windows Vista in terms of feature set and even performance in most games -- today.

That will change some day, but 64-bit isn't ready for a gaming platform yet.

GenMarshall · Jul 10, 2007

I'm happy with x32 XP Pro

GarretSidzaka · Jul 10, 2007

Asher said:
Explain...I've got 4GB in Windows Vista (32-bit).

Where are these benchmarks? I've noticed zero difference in those games. I did notice performance slowdowns in Lord of the Rings Online when I tried it (particularly terrible loading times).

You know, i heard at demonoid that halo 2 had better performance when you played it on xp with the xp patch

Vista Vs. XP Pro x64

Do you own or want to own either "Vista 64 bit" or "XP Pro x64"

I own Vista for 64 bit

I own XP Pro for 64 bit

I own XP but want Vista

I own Vista but want XP Pro x64

Don't have either and/or don't want them

Deity

Warlord

King

Emperor

Deity

C.IV

Warlord

Beep Boop

Deity

Deity

Esse Quam Videri

Warlord

Warlord

Esse Quam Videri

Warlord

High Elven ISB Capt & Ghost Agent

Deity

Similar threads