Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Windows 64bit > XP X86 hardware updates

Reply
Thread Tools

XP X86 hardware updates

 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2007
x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out as x86, and was
shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"John Barnes" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:uW%(E-Mail Removed)...
> Since the topic has changed, if I remember correctly, x86 had more than
> one hal, but x64 has only one. Am I wrong on that. This started out as
> an x86 topic.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I've done this a couple of times on x64 boxes with single core AMD CPUs
>> that I upgraded to dual core. NO issues. (the key to understand here is
>> that there is only a single, multi-core, kernel for x64 AMD procs. So
>> it's always the same even when you add additional cores.)
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "XS11E" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99337399359A1xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
>>> Flatus Ohlfahrt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
>>>> deed!
>>>
>>> Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
>>>

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2007
yeah, single HAL. Sure makes life easier! I only know because I bought early
and on a very limited budget, so had single cores. And then when I could
afford to, I upgraded them on my main working machines, food chaining the
single core CPUs down to other uses.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Good info. I didn't realize that.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> I've done this a couple of times on x64 boxes with single core AMD CPUs
>> that I upgraded to dual core. NO issues. (the key to understand here is
>> that there is only a single, multi-core, kernel for x64 AMD procs. So
>> it's always the same even when you add additional cores.)
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "XS11E" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns99337399359A1xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
>>> Flatus Ohlfahrt <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>>>
>>>> Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
>>>> deed!
>>>
>>> Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
>>>

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Flatus Ohlfahrt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-17-2007
On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
in news(E-Mail Removed):

> x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out
> as x86, and was shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.
>


Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.

FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB DDR2 RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.

Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give me 1.3-TB of storage.

And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS. So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.

Flatus
 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
It is not orphaned. What makes you think so? If you have that impression
because you do not see it on retail shelves, it was never a retail item.
OEM only. Like MCE.

"Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9933C205C2A6flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
> in news(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out
>> as x86, and was shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.
>>

>
> Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject
> line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
> upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
> issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
> upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
> flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
>
> FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB DDR2
> RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
> from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was
> a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
>
> Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
> Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
> would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
> me 1.3-TB of storage.
>
> And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
> So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
> use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
>
> Flatus


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
Just to be clear - WHS is a purely 32-bit application. And that box is now
WAY overkill for it.


--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9933C205C2A6flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
> On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
> in news(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out
>> as x86, and was shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.
>>

>
> Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject
> line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
> upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
> issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
> upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
> flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
>
> FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB DDR2
> RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
> from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was
> a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
>
> Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
> Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
> would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
> me 1.3-TB of storage.
>
> And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
> So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
> use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
>
> Flatus


 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
Charlie, I love the questions about what the best graphics cards and
wireless mice and keyboards are for WHS. It is going to take consumers a
while to get it.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Just to be clear - WHS is a purely 32-bit application. And that box is now
> WAY overkill for it.
>
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:Xns9933C205C2A6flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
>> in news(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out
>>> as x86, and was shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.
>>>

>>
>> Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject
>> line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
>> upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
>> issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
>> upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
>> flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
>>
>> FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB
>> DDR2 RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
>> from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was
>> a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
>>
>> Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
>> Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
>> would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
>> me 1.3-TB of storage.
>>
>> And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
>> So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
>> use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
>>
>> Flatus

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Charlie Russel - MVP
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not an option for me - I
was excited when I first read about it, and still think the potential is
amazing. But there are certain features that simply don't work in this
version (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here in public) that
mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've got a great box built with a LOT
of storage that is now being converted into a TiVo media server.

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

"Colin Barnhorst" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:(E-Mail Removed)...
> Charlie, I love the questions about what the best graphics cards and
> wireless mice and keyboards are for WHS. It is going to take consumers a
> while to get it.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
> news:(E-Mail Removed)...
>> Just to be clear - WHS is a purely 32-bit application. And that box is
>> now WAY overkill for it.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
>> news:Xns9933C205C2A6flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
>>> On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
>>> in news(E-Mail Removed):
>>>
>>>> x64 only has the single (multi-proc) HAL. This started out
>>>> as x86, and was shifted by the original OP in mid-thread.
>>>>
>>>
>>> Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the
>>> subject line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
>>> upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
>>> issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
>>> upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
>>> flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
>>>
>>> FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB
>>> DDR2 RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
>>> from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it
>>> was a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
>>>
>>> Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
>>> Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
>>> would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
>>> me 1.3-TB of storage.
>>>
>>> And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
>>> So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
>>> use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
>>>
>>> Flatus

>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Flatus Ohlfahrt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
My thinking is that for WHS to mature into a 'one-box-holds-all'
device, it has to have hardware resources beyond what a P4
equivalent will provide. Hence the desire to load up with
resources while still evaluating whether to buy into the
concept.

FWIW, I enthsiastically subscribed to the notion that anything
heftier than a 286 was overkill for most small installations of
the early versions of NW. So, I'm not adverse to taking a
minimalist approach to server hardware.

We have a large house with lots (4) of wired computers, a
notebook, and a PocketPC. Except for those occasions when a
grandkid wants to use one of them, I'm the only user of any of
them.

Having a centric approach to my type of computing is certainly
attractive. But, only if I can incorporate mail and extremely
rapid file transfer times for media files. Making backups work
is a trivial exercise.

With a basic PtoP system, I can do everything I want--until I'm
out of the house. That's why I've been looking at alternatives.

XP x64 is certainly attractive as a super peer--especially when
you add the capability of remote desktops. But, I'm frustrated
by the inability of some of the programs I've become dependent
on, to run on my x64 machine.

Now, I realize that you and many of the others here, have
forgotten more about some of these technologies than I ever
knew. And, the problem is made worse as, these days, I forget
what little I did know at an increasingly rapid pace.

Flatus



On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
in news:(E-Mail Removed):

> Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not an
> option for me - I was excited when I first read about it,
> and still think the potential is amazing. But there are
> certain features that simply don't work in this version
> (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here in public)
> that mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've got a great
> box built with a LOT of storage that is now being converted
> into a TiVo media server.
>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Colin Barnhorst
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
What do mean by "one-box-holds-all"? It's a server. It needs lots of
storage but pretty plain vanilla hardware. It lives to serve files to your
home network. That's pretty much all it is for. What else are you thinking
it is designed to do? It certainly isn't any alternative to your client OS.

"Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in message
news:Xns9934A0DD488BBflatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
> My thinking is that for WHS to mature into a 'one-box-holds-all'
> device, it has to have hardware resources beyond what a P4
> equivalent will provide. Hence the desire to load up with
> resources while still evaluating whether to buy into the
> concept.
>
> FWIW, I enthsiastically subscribed to the notion that anything
> heftier than a 286 was overkill for most small installations of
> the early versions of NW. So, I'm not adverse to taking a
> minimalist approach to server hardware.
>
> We have a large house with lots (4) of wired computers, a
> notebook, and a PocketPC. Except for those occasions when a
> grandkid wants to use one of them, I'm the only user of any of
> them.
>
> Having a centric approach to my type of computing is certainly
> attractive. But, only if I can incorporate mail and extremely
> rapid file transfer times for media files. Making backups work
> is a trivial exercise.
>
> With a basic PtoP system, I can do everything I want--until I'm
> out of the house. That's why I've been looking at alternatives.
>
> XP x64 is certainly attractive as a super peer--especially when
> you add the capability of remote desktops. But, I'm frustrated
> by the inability of some of the programs I've become dependent
> on, to run on my x64 machine.
>
> Now, I realize that you and many of the others here, have
> forgotten more about some of these technologies than I ever
> knew. And, the problem is made worse as, these days, I forget
> what little I did know at an increasingly rapid pace.
>
> Flatus
>
>
>
> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
> in news:(E-Mail Removed):
>
>> Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not an
>> option for me - I was excited when I first read about it,
>> and still think the potential is amazing. But there are
>> certain features that simply don't work in this version
>> (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here in public)
>> that mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've got a great
>> box built with a LOT of storage that is now being converted
>> into a TiVo media server.
>>

>


 
Reply With Quote
 
Flatus Ohlfahrt
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      05-18-2007
On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:22:50 GMT, Colin Barnhorst wrote in
news:(E-Mail Removed):

There are servers and there are servers. If a server determines, at the cluster level, what portions of a new iteration of a
file are to be stored, then, IMO, more than the traditional hardware oomph is required. By 'one-box-holds-all', I mean file
storage, serving, back-up, remote connection capability, and, wishfully, central email repository. Obviously, a dedicated
server is a completely different beast than a workgroup peer.

Flatus

> What do mean by "one-box-holds-all"? It's a server. It
> needs lots of storage but pretty plain vanilla hardware.
> It lives to serve files to your home network. That's
> pretty much all it is for. What else are you thinking it
> is designed to do? It certainly isn't any alternative to
> your client OS.
>
> "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote in
> message news:Xns9934A0DD488BBflatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
>> My thinking is that for WHS to mature into a
>> 'one-box-holds-all' device, it has to have hardware
>> resources beyond what a P4 equivalent will provide. Hence
>> the desire to load up with resources while still
>> evaluating whether to buy into the concept.
>>
>> FWIW, I enthsiastically subscribed to the notion that
>> anything heftier than a 286 was overkill for most small
>> installations of the early versions of NW. So, I'm not
>> adverse to taking a minimalist approach to server
>> hardware.
>>
>> We have a large house with lots (4) of wired computers, a
>> notebook, and a PocketPC. Except for those occasions when
>> a grandkid wants to use one of them, I'm the only user of
>> any of them.
>>
>> Having a centric approach to my type of computing is
>> certainly attractive. But, only if I can incorporate mail
>> and extremely rapid file transfer times for media files.
>> Making backups work is a trivial exercise.
>>
>> With a basic PtoP system, I can do everything I
>> want--until I'm out of the house. That's why I've been
>> looking at alternatives.
>>
>> XP x64 is certainly attractive as a super peer--especially
>> when you add the capability of remote desktops. But, I'm
>> frustrated by the inability of some of the programs I've
>> become dependent on, to run on my x64 machine.
>>
>> Now, I realize that you and many of the others here, have
>> forgotten more about some of these technologies than I
>> ever knew. And, the problem is made worse as, these days,
>> I forget what little I did know at an increasingly rapid
>> pace.
>>
>> Flatus
>>
>>
>>
>> On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP
>> wrote in
>> news:(E-Mail Removed):
>>
>>> Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not
>>> an option for me - I was excited when I first read about
>>> it, and still think the potential is amazing. But there
>>> are certain features that simply don't work in this
>>> version (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here
>>> in public) that mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've
>>> got a great box built with a LOT of storage that is now
>>> being converted into a TiVo media server.
>>>

>>

>
>




--
We fought hard for what we earned.
Tricare for Life is at:
http://www.tricareforlife.org
Tricare is at:
http://www.tricare.org
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
x64 vs x86.. surprising results in performance (x86 better)? markm75 Windows 64bit 7 01-09-2008 06:41 PM
Why is there an x86 emu if a processor is x86-64? =?Utf-8?B?RWxsaW90IEh1ZGdpbnM=?= Windows 64bit 4 07-23-2006 11:52 PM
checking "Show Updates" doesn't reveal any Windows XP updates =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?= Windows 64bit 5 05-26-2006 04:42 PM
x86 Mac Laptop and x86 iMac now available Daniel NZ Computing 11 01-17-2006 12:11 PM
Software/Hardware Updates Zinzan Computer Support 1 09-07-2004 05:19 PM



Advertisments