Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Zootal, Dec 8, 2007.

  1. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    Due to compability issues and the pain it is causing, I'm seriously
    considering abandoning XP64 and going back to XP32. Question - how much of a
    performance difference is there between the two? How much faster is XP64?
    And, if I switch back to XP32, what good does it do to have a 64bit cpu?
    Zootal, Dec 8, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
    GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
    more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
    32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.

    When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    functinality on your CPU is ever used.

    Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.

    --
    Chuck Walbourn
    SDE, XNA Developer Connection

    This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
    Chuck Walbourn [MSFT], Dec 8, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    The biggest pain is OpenGL, and it seems that Ati points the finger at
    Microsoft who points the finger at nVidia....no one wants to claim
    responsibility. OpenGL comes with windows, so you can't just reinstall it or
    upgrade it. And my research so far indicates that OpenGL with XP64 has
    issues - in some cases serious issues. Basic opengl functions appear to be
    broken, and so far I've not found a reason why.

    "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
    > GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
    > more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
    > 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >
    > When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    > functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >
    > Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    > difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    > customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >
    > --
    > Chuck Walbourn
    > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.
    >
    Zootal, Dec 8, 2007
    #3
  4. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
    two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
    some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards, and
    it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL, I
    have to disable the second display adaptor.

    And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc client
    won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I think I
    might be able to live with this now.


    "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
    > GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
    > more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
    > 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >
    > When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    > functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >
    > Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    > difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    > customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >
    > --
    > Chuck Walbourn
    > SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >
    > This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    > rights.
    >
    Zootal, Dec 8, 2007
    #4
  5. I wasn't aware of any issues in XPx64 - apparently, there are questions
    about OpenGL and Vista. I don't remember all of this any longer, but the guy
    who does the ReallySlickScreensavers seem to have a point when he says that
    driver issues 'MAY' prevent setting up multiple framebuffers - so, using one
    card with dual output could work (if the driver allows it).

    I recommend having a look at:

    http://www.reallyslick.com/

    He may not have an anser to every possible question, but he does seem to
    know what he's doing!


    Tony. . .


    "Zootal" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
    >two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
    >some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards,
    >and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL,
    >I have to disable the second display adaptor.
    >
    > And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
    > client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
    > think I might be able to live with this now.
    >
    >
    > "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
    >> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
    >> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
    >> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >>
    >> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    >> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >>
    >> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    >> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    >> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Chuck Walbourn
    >> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >> rights.
    >>

    >
    >
    Tony Sperling, Dec 8, 2007
    #5
  6. No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
    question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
    applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is to
    create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run them
    there.

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


    "Zootal" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    >I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
    >two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
    >some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards,
    >and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL,
    >I have to disable the second display adaptor.
    >
    > And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
    > client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
    > think I might be able to live with this now.
    >
    >
    > "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
    >> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
    >> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
    >> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >>
    >> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    >> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >>
    >> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    >> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    >> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Chuck Walbourn
    >> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >>
    >> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >> rights.
    >>

    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 8, 2007
    #6
  7. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    I can live without 16 bit apps - there aren't many left, and I seldom use
    them. The pain right now is the lack of availability of drivers for certain
    apps - my dvd2vhs usb capture box flat won't work - no drivers for xp64.
    Their tech support said to take it back for refund or find a 32 bit box for
    it. And in the process of installing it, it somehow disabled audio hardare
    buffering and now half of my apps that use sound have no sound - go figure?
    Uninstall, reinstall sound drivers, reinstall directx - no joy. I ended up
    booting to Linux and restoring from the backup I made right after I
    installed and patched it. In the end this was faster then trying to fix the
    broken sound.

    SecureRemote checkpoint - no xp64 support.
    My tv tuner cards - neither have xp6 drivers.
    My old Canon scanner - no xp64 support.
    16 bit apps - as you say, they don't work, but I did not expect them to so
    this isn't a real issue.

    XP64 reminds me of what I went through when I tried to upgrade from Win98 to
    Win2000. There seems to be limited hardware and software support, and it
    does not seem to be well suited to a home environment where you want to use
    a wide variety of hardware or software. The lack of checkpoint support is
    suprising - at work we have hundreds of installations of the client, and
    something like this would probably cause them to not use XP64 because of
    this.

    So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
    hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't work
    with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon says no
    xp64 support - go and buy a new one.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
    > question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
    > applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is
    > to create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run
    > them there.
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "Zootal" <> wrote in message
    > news:%...
    >>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
    >>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even
    >>be some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia
    >>cards, and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with
    >>OpenGL, I have to disable the second display adaptor.
    >>
    >> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
    >> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
    >> think I might be able to live with this now.
    >>
    >>
    >> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
    >>> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
    >>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
    >>> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >>>
    >>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    >>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >>>
    >>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    >>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    >>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >>>
    >>> --
    >>> Chuck Walbourn
    >>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >>>
    >>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >>> rights.
    >>>

    >>
    >>

    >
    Zootal, Dec 8, 2007
    #7
  8. You won't solve the hardware issues by going in the back door, no. Sorry.

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


    "Zootal" <Don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot com remove the don't
    send me any freaking spam> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I can live without 16 bit apps - there aren't many left, and I seldom use
    >them. The pain right now is the lack of availability of drivers for certain
    >apps - my dvd2vhs usb capture box flat won't work - no drivers for xp64.
    >Their tech support said to take it back for refund or find a 32 bit box for
    >it. And in the process of installing it, it somehow disabled audio hardare
    >buffering and now half of my apps that use sound have no sound - go figure?
    >Uninstall, reinstall sound drivers, reinstall directx - no joy. I ended up
    >booting to Linux and restoring from the backup I made right after I
    >installed and patched it. In the end this was faster then trying to fix the
    >broken sound.
    >
    > SecureRemote checkpoint - no xp64 support.
    > My tv tuner cards - neither have xp6 drivers.
    > My old Canon scanner - no xp64 support.
    > 16 bit apps - as you say, they don't work, but I did not expect them to so
    > this isn't a real issue.
    >
    > XP64 reminds me of what I went through when I tried to upgrade from Win98
    > to Win2000. There seems to be limited hardware and software support, and
    > it does not seem to be well suited to a home environment where you want to
    > use a wide variety of hardware or software. The lack of checkpoint support
    > is suprising - at work we have hundreds of installations of the client,
    > and something like this would probably cause them to not use XP64 because
    > of this.
    >
    > So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
    > hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't
    > work with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon
    > says no xp64 support - go and buy a new one.
    >
    > "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
    >> question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
    >> applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is
    >> to create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run
    >> them there.
    >>
    >> --
    >> Charlie.
    >> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    >> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >>
    >>
    >> "Zootal" <> wrote in message
    >> news:%...
    >>>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
    >>>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even
    >>>be some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia
    >>>cards, and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something
    >>>with OpenGL, I have to disable the second display adaptor.
    >>>
    >>> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
    >>> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
    >>> think I might be able to live with this now.
    >>>
    >>>
    >>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using
    >>>> < 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
    >>>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it
    >>>> all with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
    >>>>
    >>>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
    >>>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
    >>>>
    >>>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
    >>>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
    >>>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
    >>>>
    >>>> --
    >>>> Chuck Walbourn
    >>>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
    >>>>
    >>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
    >>>> rights.
    >>>>
    >>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Dec 9, 2007
    #8
  9. Zootal

    S.SubZero Guest

    On Dec 7, 4:59 pm, "Zootal" <> wrote:
    > Due to compability issues and the pain it is causing, I'm seriously
    > considering abandoning XP64 and going back to XP32. Question - how much of a
    > performance difference is there between the two? How much faster is XP64?
    > And, if I switch back to XP32, what good does it do to have a 64bit cpu?


    In 64-bit applications, XP64 is infinity times faster than XP32.

    > So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
    > hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't work
    > with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon says no
    > xp64 support - go and buy a new one.


    Virtual machines are just that - Virtual. They have their own BIOS,
    their own video card, their own sound chips, their own network cards,
    everything. "Hardware access" is limited to pass-through option
    devices such as network, CD/DVD drives, serial/parallel, and maybe
    USB. The software I use, Virtualbox, will allow USB access but there
    are reports of some devices not liking the pass-through setup. Very
    timing-sensitive things are iffy at best, Virtualbox for instance does
    not even officially support writing to CDs.

    I wouldn't recommend Win98 for that, unless your devices are so old
    that Win98 drivers exist and are usable. Any virtualization software
    today can easily handle XP (most new ones can handle Vista)
    S.SubZero, Dec 10, 2007
    #9
  10. Zootal

    Zootal Guest

    > Virtual machines are just that - Virtual. They have their own BIOS,
    > their own video card, their own sound chips, their own network cards,
    > everything. "Hardware access" is limited to pass-through option
    > devices such as network, CD/DVD drives, serial/parallel, and maybe
    > USB. The software I use, Virtualbox, will allow USB access but there
    > are reports of some devices not liking the pass-through setup. Very
    > timing-sensitive things are iffy at best, Virtualbox for instance does
    > not even officially support writing to CDs.
    >
    > I wouldn't recommend Win98 for that, unless your devices are so old
    > that Win98 drivers exist and are usable. Any virtualization software
    > today can easily handle XP (most new ones can handle Vista)



    Thanks for the info, everyone. The reason I would have used Win98 is because
    I don't have any spare WinXP licenses, and I have a half dozen Win98
    licenses laying around. I'm playing with installing Win2000 on a second
    partition (because I have an extra Win2000 license) to see if that will let
    me run the things that XP64 won't support.
    Zootal, Dec 14, 2007
    #10
    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. Goody2shoe
    Replies:
    32
    Views:
    1,137
    Goody2shoe
    Jul 11, 2005
  2. =?Utf-8?B?ZWNfbGFja2V5?=

    XP64 & XP32 on the same computer

    =?Utf-8?B?ZWNfbGFja2V5?=, Nov 11, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    393
    John Barnes
    Nov 11, 2005
  3. Will
    Replies:
    33
    Views:
    1,334
    LarchOye
    Dec 2, 2005
  4. =?Utf-8?B?QmVlcnRqZQ==?=

    Dual boot XP64 and XP32

    =?Utf-8?B?QmVlcnRqZQ==?=, Dec 12, 2005, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    649
    John Barnes
    Dec 13, 2005
  5. gs
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    2,219
    Charlie Russel - MVP
    Apr 2, 2006
Loading...

Share This Page