Performance comparison between 2003 and XP ///x32

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=, Jan 25, 2006.

  1. 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.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=, Jan 25, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. 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:...
    > 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.
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 25, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 25, 2006
    #3
  4. 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.

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 25, 2006
    #4
  5. 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.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=, Jan 25, 2006
    #5
  6. 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
     
    Thomas Steffen, Jan 25, 2006
    #6
  7. 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.
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 25, 2006
    #7
  8. 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?
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=, Jan 26, 2006
    #8
  9. 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?
     
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 26, 2006
    #9
  10. =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=

    roman modic Guest

    Hello!

    "deepfritz" <> wrote in message news:...
    > 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/WindowBlinds_5_Brings_Vista_UI_to_XP/1133296535
    ( WindowBlinds 5 Brings Vista UI to XP )
    ( BTW, WindowsBlinds software use hardware acceleration)
    http://www.tcmagazine.info/articles.php?action=show&showarticle=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/archive/2005/10/27/485963.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/breakingnews/breakingnews.jhtml?articleId=177104231

    6. Install Monad (although seems that it won't be released with Vista)
    http://www.betanews.com/article/Microsoft_Releases_Monad_Beta_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/jerry/archive/2005/12/19/86.aspx
    http://windowsconnected.com/blogs/joshs_blog/archive/2006/01/21/558.aspx
    But instead of UAC you can use LUA in Windows XP:
    http://blogs.msdn.com/aaron_margosis/archive/2004/06/17/158806.aspx
    http://www.microsoft.com/technet/prodtechnol/winxppro/maintain/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/securitytopics/security/story/0,10801,108056,00.html
    http://arstechnica.com/journals/microsoft.ars/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/20win.htm?q=bp&file=.htm
    (What is Windows Vista)
    http://interviews.slashdot.org/interviews/06/01/26/131246.shtml
    (MS Security VP Mike Nash Replies)

    Have a nice weekend,
    Roman
     
    roman modic, Jan 27, 2006
    #10
  11. Thanks to all, especially to Roman for the given links. I haven't visited
    these links yet but I suppose I'll get more information when I visit them.
     
    =?Utf-8?B?ZGVlcGZyaXR6?=, Jan 27, 2006
    #11
  12. You just gave us Vista in a bunch of links! :-O
    --
    --
    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:%23lZ%...
    > 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?

    >
    >
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 29, 2006
    #12
  13. Windows Vista will also include an entirely new display driver model and
    support for Direct3D 10, neither of which will be backported to Windows XP.

    --
    Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, Windows Gaming & Graphics

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
     
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], Jan 30, 2006
    #13
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Eigenvector

    Shot speed and a comparison between digital and film

    Eigenvector, Sep 23, 2003, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    6
    Views:
    573
    Michael Meissner
    Sep 25, 2003
  2. Adrian

    Cost of Upgrade Server 2003 x32 to x64

    Adrian, Aug 2, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    889
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Aug 2, 2006
  3. =?Utf-8?B?QW5keSBTaWVnZWw=?=

    Server 2003 x32 or x64?

    =?Utf-8?B?QW5keSBTaWVnZWw=?=, Mar 7, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    406
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Mar 7, 2007
  4. clucas009
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    7,370
    xnovassx
    Mar 26, 2009
  5. rapee
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    749
    rapee
    Mar 14, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page