«

Firs I want to tell you that I already tried windows Vista and XP x64 and I
am disappointed. I think that mising drivers and limited programs usege is
enough. I could mention also several bugs.
Now I am sure it's much better to use 32-bit Windows even i had AMD 3+.
But i can't choose 2003 (x32) or XP(x32) /for AMD x64 3+/ and i would like
to get some performance advise. I will use my computer for almost everithing.
Design software (without video), programming, several heavy games and 24hour
browsing and downloading. Of course I wan't need most of 2003 server services
and options but on the other side i think 2003 is more up to date. I am
waiting for advises for my choice.
Sorry for the bad english.

Well, you are not going to get any of the Server technologies of Server 2003
on XP Professional x64 or x86, so that cuts it down to either Server 2003
x64 or x86. You have not given us name of the applications you plan running
to give an accurate answer to find out if they are fully compatible with
Windows x64. To guarantee full compatibility, I would suggest sticking with
Windows Server 2003 x86. As for up to date, Windows x64 is just as up to
date as the rest of the Windows family, but its just that driver support is
not as parallel.
--
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
"deepfritz" <> wrote in message
news:A8F7B7D9-382B-402E-A9E5-...
> Firs I want to tell you that I already tried windows Vista and XP x64 and
> I
> am disappointed. I think that mising drivers and limited programs usege is
> enough. I could mention also several bugs.
> Now I am sure it's much better to use 32-bit Windows even i had AMD 3+.
> But i can't choose 2003 (x32) or XP(x32) /for AMD x64 3+/ and i would
> like
> to get some performance advise. I will use my computer for almost
> everithing.
> Design software (without video), programming, several heavy games and
> 24hour
> browsing and downloading. Of course I wan't need most of 2003 server
> services
> and options but on the other side i think 2003 is more up to date. I am
> waiting for advises for my choice.
> Sorry for the bad english.

There is no gain to running Server if you don't need to use the Server
services. Stick to XP. You'd find that Server (which is tuned for serving
other computers, rather than gaming) would be a less satisfactory solution.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

deepfritz wrote:
> Firs I want to tell you that I already tried windows Vista and XP x64
> and I am disappointed. I think that mising drivers and limited programs
> usege is enough. I could mention also several bugs.
> Now I am sure it's much better to use 32-bit Windows even i had AMD 3+.
> But i can't choose 2003 (x32) or XP(x32) /for AMD x64 3+/ and i would
> like to get some performance advise. I will use my computer for almost
> everithing. Design software (without video), programming, several heavy
> games and 24hour browsing and downloading. Of course I wan't need most of
> 2003 server services and options but on the other side i think 2003 is
> more up to date. I am waiting for advises for my choice.
> Sorry for the bad english.

Oops, I thought he said he wanted most "of the Server features". LOL
--
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
"Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
news:eo$...
> There is no gain to running Server if you don't need to use the Server
> services. Stick to XP. You'd find that Server (which is tuned for serving
> other computers, rather than gaming) would be a less satisfactory
> solution.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>
> deepfritz wrote:
>> Firs I want to tell you that I already tried windows Vista and XP x64
>> and I am disappointed. I think that mising drivers and limited programs
>> usege is enough. I could mention also several bugs.
>> Now I am sure it's much better to use 32-bit Windows even i had AMD 3+.
>> But i can't choose 2003 (x32) or XP(x32) /for AMD x64 3+/ and i would
>> like to get some performance advise. I will use my computer for almost
>> everithing. Design software (without video), programming, several heavy
>> games and 24hour browsing and downloading. Of course I wan't need most of
>> 2003 server services and options but on the other side i think 2003 is
>> more up to date. I am waiting for advises for my choice.
>> Sorry for the bad english.
>
>

Yes I also think (at that moment) that Windows XP (x32) would be a little
bit better decision rather than 2003 Server (x32), but isn't there any abiity
for WIndows 2003 to be tuned for application and some gaming performance (of
course stopping server services) because i think that win2003 should have
better memory managment and is more secure (i also will be 100% browsing and
downloading).
I have also two more more question.
I saw somewhere some kind of patch(or fix or update) for Windows XP to be
modified or tuned like "Longhorn"( I dont know the aspects). Is there such a
thing and is there ability for the kernel for example to be modified?
And at last I would like to know that:
If I use 32-bit Windows platform, will I have advantages of having 64-bit
prcessor (socket 939, 3GHz+)? I already said that I tried XP (x64) and
Longhorn (x64) and driver and program support disappointed me.

deepfritz wrote:
> Now I am sure it's much better to use 32-bit Windows even i had AMD 3+.

There are only two reasons for using Windows x64:

a) you have a huge amount of memory, like 8 GB
b) you have native 64bit applications, such as Mathematica

If these reasons do not apply to you, it is usually easier (and
therefore prefered) to just use plain 32bit Windows XP.

Thomas

Well, a server license is 3-4 times the cost of an XP Professional license.
And I still don't see where it would gain you anything. It's not "more
secure" - they are both, ultimately, the same code base. They're on a
different release schedule, and different Service Pack numbers, but the code
base is still the same.

As for "Longhorn" - worry about that when it releases. Which is still many
months away.

Will you have advantages of 64-bit processor? No, you'll have the advantages
of having a really good 32-bit processor. If at some point there are
compelling reasons to move to 64-bit (such as a program or game you can't
live without that only comes in 64-bit), then you can always install 64-bit
Windows to use it. But right now? I don't see what it would accomplish for
you.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

deepfritz wrote:
> Yes I also think (at that moment) that Windows XP (x32) would be a little
> bit better decision rather than 2003 Server (x32), but isn't there any
> abiity for WIndows 2003 to be tuned for application and some gaming
> performance (of course stopping server services) because i think that
> win2003 should have better memory managment and is more secure (i also
> will be 100% browsing and downloading).
> I have also two more more question.
> I saw somewhere some kind of patch(or fix or update) for Windows XP to be
> modified or tuned like "Longhorn"( I dont know the aspects). Is there
> such a thing and is there ability for the kernel for example to be
> modified? And at last I would like to know that:
> If I use 32-bit Windows platform, will I have advantages of having 64-bit
> prcessor (socket 939, 3GHz+)? I already said that I tried XP (x64) and
> Longhorn (x64) and driver and program support disappointed me.

Thanks to all!
I'll realy direct to Windows XP.
I just want to ask one of my questions again:

I saw somewhere some kind of patch(or fix or update) for Windows XP to be
modified or tuned like "Longhorn"( I don't know the aspects). Is there such a
thing and is there ability for the kernel /for example/ to be modified?

If there is, it's certainly not anything officially released. And thus,
something I would STRONGLY urge against.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64

deepfritz wrote:
> Thanks to all!
> I'll realy direct to Windows XP.
> I just want to ask one of my questions again:
>
> I saw somewhere some kind of patch(or fix or update) for Windows XP to
> be modified or tuned like "Longhorn"( I don't know the aspects). Is there
> such a thing and is there ability for the kernel /for example/ to be
> modified?

Hello!

"deepfritz" <> wrote in message news:F5C50C7B-FA09-4F47-A68D-...
> I saw somewhere some kind of patch(or fix or update) for Windows XP to be
> modified or tuned like "Longhorn"( I don't know the aspects). Is there such a
> thing and is there ability for the kernel /for example/ to be modified?

AFAIK there is no such thing like XP to Vista/Longhorn kernel modification.
But you can do other things with Windows XP:

1. Change user interface to look similar to Windows Vista:
http://www.betanews.com/article/Wind..._XP/1133296535
( WindowBlinds 5 Brings Vista UI to XP )
( BTW, WindowsBlinds software use hardware acceleration)
http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles....howarticle=189
(Vista Transformation Pack 3)
http://www.desktopsidebar.com/
(Desktop Sidebar)

2. Install .NET 2.0 which will be part of Windows Vista
http://blogs.msdn.com/astebner/archi...27/485963.aspx

3. Install WinFX which will be part of Windows Vista
http://arstechnica.com/news.ars/post/20060118-6007.html
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two012506-story03.html

4. Install IE7 when released:
http://news.com.com/2061-10805_3-6030053.html

5. Install Windows Defender (Windows AntiSpyware)
http://www.crn.com/sections/breaking...leId=177104231

6. Install Monad (although seems that it won't be released with Vista)
http://www.betanews.com/article/Micr...a_3/1137005666

7. Add support for XPS ("Metro") when available:
http://www.microsoft.com/whdc/xps/vista_print.mspx
http://channel9.msdn.com/Showpost.aspx?postid=137532
http://www.itjungle.com/two/two011806-story01.html
http://www.globalgraphics.com/xps/

8. Install MSXML 6.0
http://msdn.microsoft.com/XML/XMLDownloads/

There are at least three things that probably won't be ported
to Windows XP:
i. UAC
http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/je.../12/19/86.aspx
http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/jo...01/21/558.aspx
But instead of UAC you can use LUA in Windows XP:
http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis...17/158806.aspx
http://www.microsoft.com/technet/pro.../luawinxp.mspx
(Together with regmon and filemon)
http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/regmon.html
http://www.sysinternals.com/utilities/filemon.html

ii. Two-way firewall:
http://www.computerworld.com/securit...108056,00.html
http://arstechnica.com/journals/micr...2006/1/23/2634
But you can use Netlimiter or Look'n'Stop in Windows XP:
http://www.netlimiter.com/
http://www.wilderssecurity.com/forumdisplay.php?f=28

iii. Rootkit protection:
http://www.eweek.com/article2/0,1895,1914966,00.asp
But you can use "Rootkit Hook Analyzer" in Windows XP
http://www.resplendence.com/hookanalyzer


More to read:
http://us.rediff.com/money/2006/jan/...q=bp&file=.htm
(What is Windows Vista)
http://interviews.slashdot.org/inter...6/131246.shtml
(MS Security VP Mike Nash Replies)

Have a nice weekend,
Roman