Seeking answers about 64-bit Windows XP vs 64-bit Vista.

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by RMZ, Jan 18, 2007.

  1. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    are only a handful of 64-bit apps.

    I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. RMZ

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and 64-bit
    versions of every edition except Vista starter.

    The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with 32-bit
    apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here will tell
    you the same.

    This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply to
    Vista 64.
    http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc

    - Aaron

    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >
    > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >
    Aaron Kelley, Jan 18, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. RMZ

    John Barnes Guest

    I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't install
    or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.

    "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and
    > 64-bit versions of every edition except Vista starter.
    >
    > The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    > running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with
    > 32-bit apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here
    > will tell you the same.
    >
    > This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply to
    > Vista 64.
    > http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
    >
    > - Aaron
    >
    > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    >> XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >> MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >> processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    >> to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >> performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    >> are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >>
    >> I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >> versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >> Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >>

    >
    John Barnes, Jan 18, 2007
    #3
  4. Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
    can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
    physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.

    The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.

    XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
    multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.

    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >
    > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 18, 2007
    #4
  5. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    Thanks Aaron,

    I don't understand why the vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...) don't
    ship Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition on all AMD 64 Turion on Turion x2
    notebooks. Does anyone know why this is? Aren't there significant
    performance advantages to having a 64-bit OS for these processors?

    The system I purchased came with an upgrade option for Windows Vista
    Home Premium, there was no option to select Windows Vista Home Premium
    64-bit, I hope Microsoft just bundles the 64-bit kernel in with the
    mainstream distributions. It makes little sense not to. It also seems
    that there are a good number of people running some 32-bit version of
    Windows XP on 64-bit hardware.




    Aaron Kelley wrote:
    > Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and 64-bit
    > versions of every edition except Vista starter.
    >
    > The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    > running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with 32-bit
    > apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here will tell
    > you the same.
    >
    > This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply to
    > Vista 64.
    > http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
    >
    > - Aaron
    >
    > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    > > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    > > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    > > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    > > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    > > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    > > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    > >
    > > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    > > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    > > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    > >
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #5
  6. RMZ

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <#>,
    John Barnes <> wrote:
    >I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't install
    >or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.
    >


    Does WMware have a product that will run most 32 bit and 16 bit code
    under a 64 bit OS?

    What is MS going to do with Virtual PC?



    >"Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
    >news:%...
    >> Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and
    >> 64-bit versions of every edition except Vista starter.
    >>
    >> The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    >> running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with
    >> 32-bit apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here
    >> will tell you the same.
    >>
    >> This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply to
    >> Vista 64.
    >> http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
    >>
    >> - Aaron
    >>
    >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >>>I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    >>> XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >>> MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >>> processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    >>> to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >>> performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    >>> are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >>>
    >>> I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >>> versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >>> Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >>>

    >>

    >



    --
    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
    Al Dykes, Jan 18, 2007
    #6
  7. VMWare Workstation and Server will run on XP x64, and will run 16 and 32bit
    OS's. But so will the current (public) betas of Virtual Server and Virtual
    PC.

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


    "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    news:eooa3b$8ch$...
    > In article <#>,
    > John Barnes <> wrote:
    >>I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't install
    >>or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.
    >>

    >
    > Does WMware have a product that will run most 32 bit and 16 bit code
    > under a 64 bit OS?
    >
    > What is MS going to do with Virtual PC?
    >
    >
    >
    >>"Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
    >>news:%...
    >>> Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and
    >>> 64-bit versions of every edition except Vista starter.
    >>>
    >>> The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    >>> running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with
    >>> 32-bit apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here
    >>> will tell you the same.
    >>>
    >>> This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply
    >>> to
    >>> Vista 64.
    >>> http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
    >>>
    >>> - Aaron
    >>>
    >>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>>>I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    >>>> XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >>>> MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >>>> processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    >>>> to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >>>> performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    >>>> are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >>>>
    >>>> I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >>>> versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >>>> Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >>>>
    >>>

    >>

    >
    >
    > --
    > a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    > Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
    > Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 18, 2007
    #7
  8. Windows Vista doesn't distinguish between 32-bit and 64-bit versions. If you
    have a license for one, you have a license for the other. As to why they
    don't ship with x64 Edition? It's easier and cheaper to put Home Edition on.
    Frankly, the x64 Edition of XP was never intended for wide spread
    dissemination - which is why there is no retail version of it. It's
    necessary and appropriate for those whose work or systems need the
    advantages it brings (primarily around memory), but not a great fit
    otherwise. As the whitepaper Aaron pointed you to clearly discusses. (Or at
    least I hope it's clear, since I wrote it.)

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


    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks Aaron,
    >
    > I don't understand why the vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...) don't
    > ship Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition on all AMD 64 Turion on Turion x2
    > notebooks. Does anyone know why this is? Aren't there significant
    > performance advantages to having a 64-bit OS for these processors?
    >
    > The system I purchased came with an upgrade option for Windows Vista
    > Home Premium, there was no option to select Windows Vista Home Premium
    > 64-bit, I hope Microsoft just bundles the 64-bit kernel in with the
    > mainstream distributions. It makes little sense not to. It also seems
    > that there are a good number of people running some 32-bit version of
    > Windows XP on 64-bit hardware.
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Aaron Kelley wrote:
    >> Windows Vista *does* support 64-bit processors. There are 32-bit and
    >> 64-bit
    >> versions of every edition except Vista starter.
    >>
    >> The 32-bit application support hasn't changed much. However, I've been
    >> running 64-bit Windows for quite a while and never had a problem with
    >> 32-bit
    >> apps performing badly, and I imagine a lot of other people here will tell
    >> you the same.
    >>
    >> This is probably a good read for you. A lot of the issues still apply to
    >> Vista 64.
    >> http://download.microsoft.com/downl..._XP_Professional_x64_Edition_Right_for_Me.doc
    >>
    >> - Aaron
    >>
    >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >> >
    >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >> >

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 18, 2007
    #8
  9. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
    dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
    correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
    the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
    core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
    take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
    all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
    registers, etc...).

    Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
    technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
    truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
    that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
    application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
    processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
    32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
    of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
    What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.



    >Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
    > can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
    > physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    > processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
    >
    > The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
    >
    > XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
    > multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
    >
    > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    > > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    > > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    > > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    > > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    > > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    > > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    > >
    > > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    > > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    > > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    > >
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #9
  10. You cannot run 16bit code in a 64bit OS. VMWare Workstation 6 beta supports
    64bit guest OS's, but no virtualization solution can trick a 64bit OS into
    running 16bit apps. I believe the reason is that 64bit OS's require full
    32bit addressing, but Charlie can swat me around on that one.

    As far as what MS plans to do with VPC I assume you mean with regards to the
    issues you are addressing. MS will continue to support VPC as compatible
    with both x86 and x64 hosts and x86 guests. x64 guest support has been
    announced for Microsoft Vitualization which will appear in Longhorn Server
    within 180 days after that product releases. Eventually virtualization will
    migrate into future Windows server and (probably) client operating systems
    and the standalone apps like VPC and Virtual Server will not be needed
    except on legacy systems.

    "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    news:eooa3b$8ch$...
    > In article <#>,
    > John Barnes <> wrote:
    >>I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't install
    >>or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.
    >>

    >
    > Does WMware have a product that will run most 32 bit and 16 bit code
    > under a 64 bit OS?
    >
    > What is MS going to do with Virtual PC?
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 18, 2007
    #10
  11. Because XP Pro x64 is not a retail product and device driver support for
    devices the user might add to his system is not widespread enough to warrant
    adoption as a standard offering. It remains an on-demand OS.

    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Thanks Aaron,
    >
    > I don't understand why the vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...) don't
    > ship Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition on all AMD 64 Turion on Turion x2
    > notebooks. Does anyone know why this is? Aren't there significant
    > performance advantages to having a 64-bit OS for these processors?
    >
    > The system I purchased came with an upgrade option for Windows Vista
    > Home Premium, there was no option to select Windows Vista Home Premium
    > 64-bit, I hope Microsoft just bundles the 64-bit kernel in with the
    > mainstream distributions. It makes little sense not to. It also seems
    > that there are a good number of people running some 32-bit version of
    > Windows XP on 64-bit hardware.
    >
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 18, 2007
    #11
  12. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    I'm not sure about WMWare or VPC, I'm not sure how they play into this
    discussion.

    I guess I can narrow down my questions. I'm in a situation where I can
    upgrade to Vista (just waiting on it to be released and then my upgrade
    in the mail), I'd like to know if Windows Vista will support both dual
    core and 64-bit processing simultaneously (specifically I'm asking this
    about the AMD 64 Turion x2 chip) and will I have to install a special
    version of Vista to accomplish this or upon install will it profile the
    hardware and install a 64-bit kernel.


    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > You cannot run 16bit code in a 64bit OS. VMWare Workstation 6 beta supports
    > 64bit guest OS's, but no virtualization solution can trick a 64bit OS into
    > running 16bit apps. I believe the reason is that 64bit OS's require full
    > 32bit addressing, but Charlie can swat me around on that one.
    >
    > As far as what MS plans to do with VPC I assume you mean with regards to the
    > issues you are addressing. MS will continue to support VPC as compatible
    > with both x86 and x64 hosts and x86 guests. x64 guest support has been
    > announced for Microsoft Vitualization which will appear in Longhorn Server
    > within 180 days after that product releases. Eventually virtualization will
    > migrate into future Windows server and (probably) client operating systems
    > and the standalone apps like VPC and Virtual Server will not be needed
    > except on legacy systems.
    >
    > "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    > news:eooa3b$8ch$...
    > > In article <#>,
    > > John Barnes <> wrote:
    > >>I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't install
    > >>or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.
    > >>

    > >
    > > Does WMware have a product that will run most 32 bit and 16 bit code
    > > under a 64 bit OS?
    > >
    > > What is MS going to do with Virtual PC?
    > >
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #12
  13. Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets, not
    processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu is
    in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the cores.
    If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and four
    logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported hyperthreading
    you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when viewed
    from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
    respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.

    The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
    would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
    processors.

    The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory you
    can address. That is OS specific.

    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
    > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
    > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
    > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
    > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
    > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
    > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
    > registers, etc...).
    >
    > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
    > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
    > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
    > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
    > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
    > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
    > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
    > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
    > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
    >
    >
    >
    >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
    >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
    >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
    >>
    >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
    >>
    >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
    >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
    >>
    >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >> >
    >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >> >

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 18, 2007
    #13
  14. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.

    According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
    Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
    "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.

    >From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of

    physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
    while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
    process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
    addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.

    If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
    there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.

    Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
    XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
    advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...





    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets, not
    > processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu is
    > in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the cores.
    > If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and four
    > logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported hyperthreading
    > you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when viewed
    > from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
    > respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
    >
    > The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
    > would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
    > processors.
    >
    > The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory you
    > can address. That is OS specific.
    >
    > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    > > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
    > > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
    > > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
    > > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
    > > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
    > > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
    > > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
    > > registers, etc...).
    > >
    > > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
    > > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
    > > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
    > > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
    > > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
    > > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
    > > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
    > > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
    > > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
    > >
    > >
    > >
    > >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including MCE,
    > >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use one
    > >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    > >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
    > >>
    > >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
    > >>
    > >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can be
    > >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and Ultimate.
    > >>
    > >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > >> news:...
    > >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with Windows
    > >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    > >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    > >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't want
    > >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    > >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point there
    > >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    > >> >
    > >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    > >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    > >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    > >> >

    > >
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #14
  15. RMZ

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    I'm not sure if you mean that you cannot run a 16-bit guest in a 64-bit
    host.
    I can confirm that you *can* run a 16-bit virtual machine (in VMware
    Workstation) on a 64-bit host. I've had a DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.1 machine
    working for a while.

    Furthermore, when running a 32-bit OS (i.e. WinXP x86, Win98) in a 64-bit
    host, running 16-bit apps in the 32-bit OS works fine.

    - Aaron

    "Colin Barnhorst" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > You cannot run 16bit code in a 64bit OS. VMWare Workstation 6 beta
    > supports 64bit guest OS's, but no virtualization solution can trick a
    > 64bit OS into running 16bit apps. I believe the reason is that 64bit OS's
    > require full 32bit addressing, but Charlie can swat me around on that one.
    >
    > As far as what MS plans to do with VPC I assume you mean with regards to
    > the issues you are addressing. MS will continue to support VPC as
    > compatible with both x86 and x64 hosts and x86 guests. x64 guest support
    > has been announced for Microsoft Vitualization which will appear in
    > Longhorn Server within 180 days after that product releases. Eventually
    > virtualization will migrate into future Windows server and (probably)
    > client operating systems and the standalone apps like VPC and Virtual
    > Server will not be needed except on legacy systems.
    >
    > "Al Dykes" <> wrote in message
    > news:eooa3b$8ch$...
    >> In article <#>,
    >> John Barnes <> wrote:
    >>>I'll confirm what is said, but add that some 32-bit programs won't
    >>>install
    >>>or run on 64-bit and no 16-bit will.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Does WMware have a product that will run most 32 bit and 16 bit code
    >> under a 64 bit OS?
    >>
    >> What is MS going to do with Virtual PC?
    >>

    >
    Aaron Kelley, Jan 18, 2007
    #15
  16. RMZ

    Aaron Kelley Guest

    Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit Vista.
    Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.

    If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
    clean install of Windows.

    It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version to
    install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from it and
    do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for your old
    media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista, you have to
    start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be able to run the
    64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've heard more about
    this.)

    - Aaron

    "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
    >
    > According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
    > Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
    > "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
    >
    >>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of

    > physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
    > while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
    > process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
    > addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
    >
    > If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
    > there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
    >
    > Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
    > XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
    > advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
    >
    >
    >
    >
    >
    > Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
    >> not
    >> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu
    >> is
    >> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the cores.
    >> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and four
    >> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported hyperthreading
    >> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when viewed
    >> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
    >> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
    >>
    >> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
    >> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
    >> processors.
    >>
    >> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory
    >> you
    >> can address. That is OS specific.
    >>
    >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >> news:...
    >> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
    >> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
    >> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
    >> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
    >> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..) can
    >> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
    >> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
    >> > registers, etc...).
    >> >
    >> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
    >> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
    >> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips, is
    >> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
    >> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
    >> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
    >> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
    >> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other areas.
    >> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >
    >> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
    >> >> MCE,
    >> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
    >> >> one
    >> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    >> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
    >> >>
    >> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
    >> >>
    >> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can
    >> >> be
    >> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
    >> >> Ultimate.
    >> >>
    >> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >> >> news:...
    >> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
    >> >> >Windows
    >> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows XP
    >> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
    >> >> > want
    >> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
    >> >> > there
    >> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >> >> >
    >> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on all
    >> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >> >> >
    >> >

    >
    Aaron Kelley, Jan 18, 2007
    #16
  17. RMZ

    Al Dykes Guest

    In article <>,
    Aaron Kelley <> wrote:
    >I'm not sure if you mean that you cannot run a 16-bit guest in a 64-bit
    >host.
    >I can confirm that you *can* run a 16-bit virtual machine (in VMware
    >Workstation) on a 64-bit host. I've had a DOS 6.22 / Windows 3.1 machine
    >working for a while.
    >
    >Furthermore, when running a 32-bit OS (i.e. WinXP x86, Win98) in a 64-bit
    >host, running 16-bit apps in the 32-bit OS works fine.
    >
    > - Aaron




    Nice. Got any benchmarks?

    I figured it had to work. Of course I don't know how you
    virtualize/emulate IO/IRQ jumpers needed to get any interesting system
    working. :)



    --
    a d y k e s @ p a n i x . c o m
    Harrison for Congress in NY 13CD www.harrison06.com
    Don't blame me. I voted for Gore. A Proud signature since 2001
    Al Dykes, Jan 18, 2007
    #17
  18. * RMZ:

    > I don't understand why the vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...) don't
    > ship Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition on all AMD 64 Turion on Turion x2
    > notebooks. Does anyone know why this is?


    Yes. It's simply because their customers prefer to be able to run all
    Windows programs out there and get drivers for their peripherals.
    Windows 32bit still does all what maybe 99% of all customers want while
    x64 Windows doesn't...

    > Aren't there significant
    > performance advantages to having a 64-bit OS for these processors?


    If you don't have more than 4GB memory and some native x64 applications: no.

    Benjamin
    Benjamin Gawert, Jan 18, 2007
    #18
  19. RMZ

    RMZ Guest

    Well, I'm going to go off topic here.

    I develop software, nothing too heavy, mostly business applications.
    Recently I've been tasked with building a memory intensive GIS
    application, which will involve > 20 GB on geographical data and raster
    images. As you can imagine the advantages of 64-bit have me drooling.
    But putting my requirement aside, video editing is pretty popular thing
    many consumers do and I would think 64-bit technology could
    revolutionize video editing and that's just the tip of the ice berg. I
    could also see people doing CAD and multi-track audio production
    demanding 64-bit. Games as well, definitely games....

    64-bit applications can't be written until a mainstream 64-bit OS
    exist, it's not the other way around. It never has been. 32-bit Windows
    came about then the 32-bit applications came about.

    The x64 technology has been around for a few years now, why isn't this
    considered a big deal? Why aren't developers creating 64-bit apps. The
    finger has to point back at the OS vendor.



    Benjamin Gawert wrote:
    > * RMZ:
    >
    > > I don't understand why the vendors (Dell, HP, Gateway, etc...) don't
    > > ship Windows XP Pro 64-bit edition on all AMD 64 Turion on Turion x2
    > > notebooks. Does anyone know why this is?

    >
    > Yes. It's simply because their customers prefer to be able to run all
    > Windows programs out there and get drivers for their peripherals.
    > Windows 32bit still does all what maybe 99% of all customers want while
    > x64 Windows doesn't...
    >
    > > Aren't there significant
    > > performance advantages to having a 64-bit OS for these processors?

    >
    > If you don't have more than 4GB memory and some native x64 applications: no.
    >
    > Benjamin
    RMZ, Jan 18, 2007
    #19
  20. RMZ

    Dennis Pack Guest

    Aaron:
    My understanding is that with Vista 32-bit upgrade the installer
    will only start from within the running operating system. Vista x64 upgrade
    boots from the DVD then verifies that an activated copy of Windows 2000, XP
    or XP x64 are present for the installation to start.

    --
    Dennis Pack
    XP x64, Vista Enterprise x64
    Office2007
    "Aaron Kelley" <> wrote in message
    news:%...
    > Just so you know, you cannot upgrade from 32-bit Windows XP to 64-bit
    > Vista. Cross-platform upgrades are not possible.
    >
    > If you buy Vista, you can get the 64-bit version, but you'll have to do a
    > clean install of Windows.
    >
    > It is presently not clear if you will be able to use an "upgrade" version
    > to install Vista 64. Previously, you could use upgrade media, boot from
    > it and do a clean install, and during the install it would ask you for
    > your old media to verify that you qualified for the upgrade. In Vista,
    > you have to start the upgrade from within the running OS so you won't be
    > able to run the 64-bit installer. (Someone please correct me if we've
    > heard more about this.)
    >
    > - Aaron
    >
    > "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >>I feel like we're going in circles and that's mostly my fault.
    >>
    >> According to many sources (Charles Russel's Windows XP 64 white paper,
    >> Wikipedia's article on 64-bit and the AMD website to name a few), the
    >> "bitness" of an OS has a lot to do with how much memory you can access.
    >>
    >>>From Charle's whitepaper: 64-bit (x64) can support up to 128 GB of

    >> physical memory and 16 Terra bytes (single process) of virtual memory,
    >> while 32-bit can support only 4 GB of physical memory and 4 GB (per
    >> process) of virtual memory. So let's talk specifically about the memory
    >> addressing aspect of 64-bit in Vista.
    >>
    >> If I go buy Windows XP Pro off the shelve, the 64-bit support isn't
    >> there I have to request the 64-bit Pro.
    >>
    >> Upon release, if I go and buy Windows Vista and upgrade from Windows
    >> XP MCE will my OS be able to run 64-bit applications that take
    >> advantage of > 4 GB virtual memory, 64-bit registers, etc...
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >>
    >> Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> Each core is a LOGICAL processor as viewed from the OS. Think sockets,
    >>> not
    >>> processors. The Home editions support one socket regardless of what cpu
    >>> is
    >>> in it. If it is a multicore cpu the Home editions can use all the
    >>> cores.
    >>> If you had a quad-core cpu you would have one physical processor and
    >>> four
    >>> logical processors. If you had a quad-core that supported
    >>> hyperthreading
    >>> you would have one physical cpu with eight logical processors when
    >>> viewed
    >>> from Task Manager. There is no difference between XP and Vista in this
    >>> respect and it has nothing to do with bitness.
    >>>
    >>> The Business editions support two sockets, so in the above examples you
    >>> would have as many as 16 logical processors with the two physical
    >>> processors.
    >>>
    >>> The number of cores and bitness of the cpu do not affect how much memory
    >>> you
    >>> can address. That is OS specific.
    >>>
    >>> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >>> news:...
    >>> > I'm not sure I follow.... My understanding is the AMD 64 Turion x2 is
    >>> > dual core, but each core has a 64-bit processor. If I understand
    >>> > correctly you're saying that 64-bit Windows XP Pro can take advantage
    >>> > the 64-bit CPUs 64-bit registers, but it doesn't utilize the second
    >>> > core in dual core CPUs... and that Windows 32-bit (Pro, MCE, etc..)
    >>> > can
    >>> > take advantage of dual core processors, but does not take advantage of
    >>> > all things 64-bit has to offer (terrabytes of virtual paging, 64-bit
    >>> > registers, etc...).
    >>> >
    >>> > Why can't we have both? Unless I'm misunderstanding AMD's dual core 64
    >>> > technology, it seems like Microsoft doesn't have an OS capable of
    >>> > truely utilizing all the power of the latest AMD 64 dual core chips,
    >>> > is
    >>> > that true? How will Vista be different? Depending on the type of
    >>> > application you're creating, code that's written to target a 64-bit
    >>> > processor can have significant advantages performance wise over a
    >>> > 32-bit. Especially when you need to access indexed access to Gigabytes
    >>> > of data in memory, dual core technology offers benefits in other
    >>> > areas.
    >>> > What's the point of a dual core 64-bit chip if you can't utilize both.
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >
    >>> >>Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    >>> >> Your assumption is incorrect. All editions of Windows XP, including
    >>> >> MCE,
    >>> >> can leverage a multicore processor. XP Home and XP MCE can only use
    >>> >> one
    >>> >> physical cpu (socket) but that cpu can have multiple cores (logical
    >>> >> processors). The same is true of Vista Home Basic and Premium.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> The bitness of the OS does not matter. x86 and x64 are the same.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> XP Pro SP2 and XP Pro x64 can support two sockets and those cpu's can
    >>> >> be
    >>> >> multicore. The same is true of Vista Business, Enterprise, and
    >>> >> Ultimate.
    >>> >>
    >>> >> "RMZ" <> wrote in message
    >>> >> news:...
    >>> >> >I recently purchased a AMD 64 Turion x2 based notebook PC with
    >>> >> >Windows
    >>> >> > XP Media Center Edition installed. My assumption is since Windows
    >>> >> > XP
    >>> >> > MCE is not 64-bit that I'm not able to tap into the power of the
    >>> >> > processors. I'm looking at Windows XP 64-bit edition and I don't
    >>> >> > want
    >>> >> > to install it because I'm hearing conflicting information about
    >>> >> > performance of 32-bit apps on 64-bit Windows, and at this point
    >>> >> > there
    >>> >> > are only a handful of 64-bit apps.
    >>> >> >
    >>> >> > I'm wondering if Windows Vista will support 64-bit processors on
    >>> >> > all
    >>> >> > versions and if Windows Vista will have better support for 32-bit
    >>> >> > Windows applications. Is it too early to ask these questions?
    >>> >> >
    >>> >

    >>

    >
    Dennis Pack, Jan 18, 2007
    #20
    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. =?Utf-8?B?Tmlyb2s=?=

    Upgrade from vista 32 bit to vista 64 bit

    =?Utf-8?B?Tmlyb2s=?=, Feb 2, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    362
    Dennis Pack
    Feb 3, 2007
  2. geece
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    652
    =?Utf-8?B?Ym9iIHNvbGxh?=
    Feb 15, 2007
  3. =?Utf-8?B?Z2VuZQ==?=

    vista 32 bit home premium to 64 bit vista ultimate

    =?Utf-8?B?Z2VuZQ==?=, Mar 9, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    548
    mikeyhsd
    Mar 10, 2007
  4. =?Utf-8?B?bG9vcGxvY2Fs?=

    Will 64 bit Vista license key work on 32 bit Vista Install?

    =?Utf-8?B?bG9vcGxvY2Fs?=, Mar 30, 2007, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    1,192
  5. Knowledge
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    601
Loading...

Share This Page