x64 decision

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by =?Utf-8?B?QnJ5YW4=?=, Jan 6, 2006.

  1. I've been reading the x64 thread for about 2 months regarding some of the
    difficulties and problems that arise with the new OS. I've also watched the
    web cast by Charlie Russel regarding who x64 is created for. I'm still in a
    quandry. I will be purchasing and building a new system with amd 64 dual
    core 4400+. I will need to buy an OS. x64 and xp are equally priced,
    doesn't it make sense to get x 64. why have a processor that is not being
    utilized by the operating system? Again, I know you guys answer this
    question every other day. Will x64 improve performance of the software I
    run? And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?
    =?Utf-8?B?QnJ5YW4=?=, Jan 6, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Sort answer is yes. If you do any kind of cpu benchmark on x64 it ends up
    faster, multi tasking and memory , disk based activities are all faster it is
    however not twice as fast more like 5-25% faster from my real world usage.
    The only issue is the driver situation, same as it was when XP came out and
    everything was done for Win98, you godda take the plunge get those duel cores
    humming and put up with a few months wait for a few drivers.

    "Bryan" wrote:

    > I've been reading the x64 thread for about 2 months regarding some of the
    > difficulties and problems that arise with the new OS. I've also watched the
    > web cast by Charlie Russel regarding who x64 is created for. I'm still in a
    > quandry. I will be purchasing and building a new system with amd 64 dual
    > core 4400+. I will need to buy an OS. x64 and xp are equally priced,
    > doesn't it make sense to get x 64. why have a processor that is not being
    > utilized by the operating system? Again, I know you guys answer this
    > question every other day. Will x64 improve performance of the software I
    > run? And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?
    =?Utf-8?B?Rm94YWJpbG8=?=, Jan 6, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. =?Utf-8?B?QnJ5YW4=?=

    John Barnes Guest

    why have a processor that is not being utilized by the operating system?

    Good question, but then why have an operating system that needs to run your
    32-bit programs thru the extra code of an emulation layer.

    Again, I know you guys answer this
    > question every other day. Will x64 improve performance of the software I
    > run?


    If you have 64-bit software or use more than 4 gig ram, probably
    otherwise most likely you won't notice the difference Also a clean install
    always runs better.


    Some of your current programs may not run or run properly, and you may not
    be able to find drivers for some of your equipment. If you are doing
    everything from scratch, go for it, just make sure all the programs and all
    your hardware are ready for Windows x64
    John Barnes, Jan 6, 2006
    #3
  4. Why not buy from a system builder who will preinstall both the x86 and x64
    systems and have a dual boot system to cover all the bases?

    "Bryan" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've been reading the x64 thread for about 2 months regarding some of the
    > difficulties and problems that arise with the new OS. I've also watched
    > the
    > web cast by Charlie Russel regarding who x64 is created for. I'm still in
    > a
    > quandry. I will be purchasing and building a new system with amd 64 dual
    > core 4400+. I will need to buy an OS. x64 and xp are equally priced,
    > doesn't it make sense to get x 64. why have a processor that is not being
    > utilized by the operating system? Again, I know you guys answer this
    > question every other day. Will x64 improve performance of the software I
    > run? And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 6, 2006
    #4
  5. Bryan wrote:
    > x64 and xp are equally priced,


    Not really. x64 only comes as a professional edition, and with an
    unclear upgrade path. You should also add the cost of all the legacy
    hardward that does not work with x64, and needs replacing. Finally, if
    x64 is incompatible with some essential hardware or software, you will
    need to buy XP anyway and dual boot (or buy VMware, too). So this can
    become *very* expensive.

    Standard XP is 5 euro cheaper (around here). And although Microsoft has
    not specified the update path either, I am 100% certain that there is
    going to be one, just because of the numbers. You can also buy XP home,
    which saves you some money.

    > why have a processor that is not being
    > utilized by the operating system?


    Then you need pure64 Ubuntu Linux (or a similar distribution). It comes
    with several GB of well tested 64bit software. Even so, the speed gain
    is not necessarily worth the occasional extra hassle over a standard
    32bit installation.

    For Windows, I just don't see any serious 64bit applications. I know of
    Mathematica, but that is it. And there are a few applications included
    with x64 (IE, Shell, Outlook Express), but due to the lack of 64bit
    plugins, these are mostly useless. Not even Windows Update works in the
    64bit IE.

    Which leaves you with three essential questions:

    * Do you have 64bit drivers for every single piece of hardware you want
    to use during the lifetime of the PC?
    * Do you have a killer 64bit application?
    * Do you have more than 4 GB of RAM?

    Unless you answer yes twice, I would not recommend x64.

    > Will x64 improve performance of the software I
    > run?


    Not for 32bit software, no. And even the advantage for 64bit software is
    small (10 to 20%), unless you have more than 4 GB of RAM.

    > And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?


    No.

    That being said, if you like to play with the latest technology, x64
    certainly fits the bill. But I would use the test version for that
    purpose. You can try it for a while, and then you can decide to by a
    license, or go back to regular XP.

    Thomas
    Thomas Steffen, Jan 6, 2006
    #5
  6. Microsoft HAS specified an upgrade path: there is none.

    XP Pro x64 is OEM only and requires a clean installation. No upgrade from
    any edition of Windows is supported. There is no plan to do so.

    "Thomas Steffen" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > Bryan wrote:
    >> x64 and xp are equally priced,

    >
    > Not really. x64 only comes as a professional edition, and with an unclear
    > upgrade path. You should also add the cost of all the legacy hardward that
    > does not work with x64, and needs replacing. Finally, if x64 is
    > incompatible with some essential hardware or software, you will need to
    > buy XP anyway and dual boot (or buy VMware, too). So this can become
    > *very* expensive.
    >
    > Standard XP is 5 euro cheaper (around here). And although Microsoft has
    > not specified the update path either, I am 100% certain that there is
    > going to be one, just because of the numbers. You can also buy XP home,
    > which saves you some money.
    >
    >> why have a processor that is not being utilized by the operating system?

    >
    > Then you need pure64 Ubuntu Linux (or a similar distribution). It comes
    > with several GB of well tested 64bit software. Even so, the speed gain is
    > not necessarily worth the occasional extra hassle over a standard 32bit
    > installation.
    >
    > For Windows, I just don't see any serious 64bit applications. I know of
    > Mathematica, but that is it. And there are a few applications included
    > with x64 (IE, Shell, Outlook Express), but due to the lack of 64bit
    > plugins, these are mostly useless. Not even Windows Update works in the
    > 64bit IE.
    >
    > Which leaves you with three essential questions:
    >
    > * Do you have 64bit drivers for every single piece of hardware you want to
    > use during the lifetime of the PC?
    > * Do you have a killer 64bit application?
    > * Do you have more than 4 GB of RAM?
    >
    > Unless you answer yes twice, I would not recommend x64.
    >
    >> Will x64 improve performance of the software I run?

    >
    > Not for 32bit software, no. And even the advantage for 64bit software is
    > small (10 to 20%), unless you have more than 4 GB of RAM.
    >
    >> And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?

    >
    > No.
    >
    > That being said, if you like to play with the latest technology, x64
    > certainly fits the bill. But I would use the test version for that
    > purpose. You can try it for a while, and then you can decide to by a
    > license, or go back to regular XP.
    >
    > Thomas
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 6, 2006
    #6
  7. But there _will_ be an upgrade to retail Vista.

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

    Colin Barnhorst wrote:
    > Microsoft HAS specified an upgrade path: there is none.
    >
    > XP Pro x64 is OEM only and requires a clean installation. No upgrade from
    > any edition of Windows is supported. There is no plan to do so.
    >
    > "Thomas Steffen" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >> Bryan wrote:
    >>> x64 and xp are equally priced,

    >>
    >> Not really. x64 only comes as a professional edition, and with an unclear
    >> upgrade path. You should also add the cost of all the legacy hardward
    >> that does not work with x64, and needs replacing. Finally, if x64 is
    >> incompatible with some essential hardware or software, you will need to
    >> buy XP anyway and dual boot (or buy VMware, too). So this can become
    >> *very* expensive.
    >>
    >> Standard XP is 5 euro cheaper (around here). And although Microsoft has
    >> not specified the update path either, I am 100% certain that there is
    >> going to be one, just because of the numbers. You can also buy XP home,
    >> which saves you some money.
    >>
    >>> why have a processor that is not being utilized by the operating system?

    >>
    >> Then you need pure64 Ubuntu Linux (or a similar distribution). It comes
    >> with several GB of well tested 64bit software. Even so, the speed gain is
    >> not necessarily worth the occasional extra hassle over a standard 32bit
    >> installation.
    >>
    >> For Windows, I just don't see any serious 64bit applications. I know of
    >> Mathematica, but that is it. And there are a few applications included
    >> with x64 (IE, Shell, Outlook Express), but due to the lack of 64bit
    >> plugins, these are mostly useless. Not even Windows Update works in the
    >> 64bit IE.
    >>
    >> Which leaves you with three essential questions:
    >>
    >> * Do you have 64bit drivers for every single piece of hardware you want
    >> to use during the lifetime of the PC?
    >> * Do you have a killer 64bit application?
    >> * Do you have more than 4 GB of RAM?
    >>
    >> Unless you answer yes twice, I would not recommend x64.
    >>
    >>> Will x64 improve performance of the software I run?

    >>
    >> Not for 32bit software, no. And even the advantage for 64bit software is
    >> small (10 to 20%), unless you have more than 4 GB of RAM.
    >>
    >>> And will having it improve the PC's ability to multitask?

    >>
    >> No.
    >>
    >> That being said, if you like to play with the latest technology, x64
    >> certainly fits the bill. But I would use the test version for that
    >> purpose. You can try it for a while, and then you can decide to by a
    >> license, or go back to regular XP.
    >>
    >> Thomas
    Charlie Russel - MVP, Jan 7, 2006
    #7
  8. On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:55:08 -0800, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    <> wrote:

    >But there _will_ be an upgrade to retail Vista.


    I noticed recently that Apple sell what they call a "Family Pack" OSX,
    I think it's licenses for 3 PCs at a slightly reduced price for each
    license.

    Is Microsoft (why am I asking?) giving any consideration to something
    like that for Vista in order to stay competitive?
    J. Eric Durbin, Jan 7, 2006
    #8
  9. If you own a retail edition license for Windows you can buy another at about
    the same degree of reduction as you are describing. That does not help with
    x64 because it is not a retail edition license. However, in general you can
    beat the additional license price by buying another retail box from a
    discount retailer.

    "J. Eric Durbin" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Fri, 6 Jan 2006 16:55:08 -0800, "Charlie Russel - MVP"
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>But there _will_ be an upgrade to retail Vista.

    >
    > I noticed recently that Apple sell what they call a "Family Pack" OSX,
    > I think it's licenses for 3 PCs at a slightly reduced price for each
    > license.
    >
    > Is Microsoft (why am I asking?) giving any consideration to something
    > like that for Vista in order to stay competitive?
    >
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 7, 2006
    #9
    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. Silverstrand

    OSC releases decision in ATi insider trading case

    Silverstrand, Oct 15, 2005, in forum: Front Page News
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    607
    Silverstrand
    Oct 15, 2005
  2. programmerforknowledge

    Help for C# Interview questions and career decision

    programmerforknowledge, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: Microsoft Certification
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    3,503
    ZombyWoof
    Sep 19, 2005
  3. Cen
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    905
  4. programmerforknowledge

    Help for C# Interview questions and career decision

    programmerforknowledge, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: MCSD
    Replies:
    3
    Views:
    2,215
    =?Utf-8?B?cm1hY2lhcw==?=
    Sep 23, 2005
  5. programmerforknowledge

    Help for C# Interview questions and career decision

    programmerforknowledge, Sep 11, 2005, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    3,063
    jerryvn01
    Jul 7, 2010
Loading...

Share This Page