XP X86 hardware updates

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 17, 2007.

  1. I'll be changing a CPU from a single core to dual core Athlon X64. Also, I'll be increasing RAM to 4-GB and will be adding
    another 250-GB EIDE drive.

    Although I don't expect any complications from increasing the RAM and adding another drive, I am concerned that changing the CPU
    (not the complete MB) will force a software reinstall. Do I have reason to be concerned?

    Flatus
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 17, 2007
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    John Barnes Guest

    This isn't an X86 group. To be the safest, you should uninstall the driver,
    if any, for the CPU. There may not be one installed.

    "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99337A8412F93flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
    > I'll be changing a CPU from a single core to dual core Athlon X64. Also,
    > I'll be increasing RAM to 4-GB and will be adding
    > another 250-GB EIDE drive.
    >
    > Although I don't expect any complications from increasing the RAM and
    > adding another drive, I am concerned that changing the CPU
    > (not the complete MB) will force a software reinstall. Do I have reason to
    > be concerned?
    >
    > Flatus
    John Barnes, May 17, 2007
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    Theo Guest

    The only thing I can think of is the kernel modules. At the
    time you install Windows it decides which modules it needs
    and I don't know if it would update the kernel by itself.
    Your performance may suffer if these modules are not
    updated. The kernel modules for multiple CPUs, including
    dual core, are different than the ones for a single CPU.

    There is a KB896256 that addresses an update and it does
    mention Server 2003 x64 in the article.

    http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256

    I performed the above update on XP 32-bit, but have not
    tried on Win x64.


    In Win XP Pro
    Flatus Ohlfahrt wrote:
    > I'll be changing a CPU from a single core to dual core Athlon X64. Also, I'll be increasing RAM to 4-GB and will be adding
    > another 250-GB EIDE drive.
    >
    > Although I don't expect any complications from increasing the RAM and adding another drive, I am concerned that changing the CPU
    > (not the complete MB) will force a software reinstall. Do I have reason to be concerned?
    >
    > Flatus
    Theo, May 17, 2007
    #3
  4. You won't have to reinstall but you may need to do a repair install of
    Windows to get the hardware abstraction layer right for dual core. You may
    also need a cpu driver from the AMD site.

    All this should be straightforward.

    "Flatus Ohlfahrt" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99337A8412F93flatusTFL@130.133.1.4...
    > I'll be changing a CPU from a single core to dual core Athlon X64. Also,
    > I'll be increasing RAM to 4-GB and will be adding
    > another 250-GB EIDE drive.
    >
    > Although I don't expect any complications from increasing the RAM and
    > adding another drive, I am concerned that changing the CPU
    > (not the complete MB) will force a software reinstall. Do I have reason to
    > be concerned?
    >
    > Flatus
    Colin Barnhorst, May 17, 2007
    #4
  5. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    Theo Guest

    P.S.
    I just tried the KB download on Win x64 and it doesn't work.

    Theo wrote:
    > The only thing I can think of is the kernel modules. At the time you
    > install Windows it decides which modules it needs and I don't know if it
    > would update the kernel by itself. Your performance may suffer if these
    > modules are not updated. The kernel modules for multiple CPUs,
    > including dual core, are different than the ones for a single CPU.
    >
    > There is a KB896256 that addresses an update and it does mention Server
    > 2003 x64 in the article.
    >
    > http://support.microsoft.com/kb/896256
    >
    > I performed the above update on XP 32-bit, but have not tried on Win x64.
    >
    >
    > In Win XP Pro
    > Flatus Ohlfahrt wrote:
    >> I'll be changing a CPU from a single core to dual core Athlon X64.
    >> Also, I'll be increasing RAM to 4-GB and will be adding another 250-GB
    >> EIDE drive.
    >>
    >> Although I don't expect any complications from increasing the RAM and
    >> adding another drive, I am concerned that changing the CPU (not the
    >> complete MB) will force a software reinstall. Do I have reason to be
    >> concerned?
    >>
    >> Flatus
    Theo, May 17, 2007
    #5
  6. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    On Thu, 17 May 2007 16:41:40 GMT, Colin Barnhorst wrote in
    news::

    > You won't have to reinstall but you may need to do a repair
    > install of Windows to get the hardware abstraction layer
    > right for dual core. You may also need a cpu driver from
    > the AMD site.
    >
    > All this should be straightforward.


    Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the deed!

    Flatus
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 17, 2007
    #6
  7. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    XS11E Guest

    Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    Flatus Ohlfahrt <> wrote:

    > Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
    > deed!


    Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
    XS11E, May 17, 2007
    #7
  8. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    I've done this a couple of times on x64 boxes with single core AMD CPUs that
    I upgraded to dual core. NO issues. (the key to understand here is that
    there is only a single, multi-core, kernel for x64 AMD procs. So it's always
    the same even when you add additional cores.)

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


    "XS11E" <> wrote in message
    news:Xns99337399359A1xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
    > Flatus Ohlfahrt <> wrote:
    >
    >> Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
    >> deed!

    >
    > Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 17, 2007
    #8
  9. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    Good info. I didn't realize that.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've done this a couple of times on x64 boxes with single core AMD CPUs
    > that I upgraded to dual core. NO issues. (the key to understand here is
    > that there is only a single, multi-core, kernel for x64 AMD procs. So it's
    > always the same even when you add additional cores.)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "XS11E" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns99337399359A1xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
    >> Flatus Ohlfahrt <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
    >>> deed!

    >>
    >> Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
    >>

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, May 17, 2007
    #9
  10. Flatus Ohlfahrt

    John Barnes Guest

    Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    Since the topic has changed, if I remember correctly, x86 had more than one
    hal, but x64 has only one. Am I wrong on that. This started out as an x86
    topic.

    "Charlie Russel - MVP" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > I've done this a couple of times on x64 boxes with single core AMD CPUs
    > that I upgraded to dual core. NO issues. (the key to understand here is
    > that there is only a single, multi-core, kernel for x64 AMD procs. So it's
    > always the same even when you add additional cores.)
    >
    > --
    > Charlie.
    > http://msmvps.com/xperts64
    > http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
    >
    >
    > "XS11E" <> wrote in message
    > news:Xns99337399359A1xs11eyahoocom@127.0.0.1...
    >> Flatus Ohlfahrt <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> Thanks for the reassurance you and others gave. I'm off to do the
    >>> deed!

    >>
    >> Have fun, good luck and please come back and tell us how it went.
    >>

    >
    John Barnes, May 17, 2007
    #10
  11. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

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

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


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

    >>

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 17, 2007
    #11
  12. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    yeah, single HAL. Sure makes life easier! I only know because I bought early
    and on a very limited budget, so had single cores. And then when I could
    afford to, I upgraded them on my main working machines, food chaining the
    single core CPUs down to other uses.

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


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

    >>

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 17, 2007
    #12
  13. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    On Thu, 17 May 2007 22:06:46 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
    in news:D:

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


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

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

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

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

    Flatus
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 18, 2007
    #13
  14. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    It is not orphaned. What makes you think so? If you have that impression
    because you do not see it on retail shelves, it was never a retail item.
    OEM only. Like MCE.

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

    >
    > Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject
    > line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
    > upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
    > issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
    > upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
    > flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
    >
    > FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB DDR2
    > RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
    > from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was
    > a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
    >
    > Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
    > Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
    > would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
    > me 1.3-TB of storage.
    >
    > And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
    > So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
    > use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
    >
    > Flatus
    Colin Barnhorst, May 18, 2007
    #14
  15. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    Just to be clear - WHS is a purely 32-bit application. And that box is now
    WAY overkill for it.


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


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

    >
    > Grandpa forgot to shift his mind out of 'park' before writing the subject
    > line. But, luckily, he took his nap before doing the
    > upgrade. As you very accurately stated, there were absolutely no system
    > issues. As usual, the major problem was clipping on the
    > upgraded CPU cooler. Finally had to have Grandma come and hold a
    > flashlight for me so I could see what I was doing.
    >
    > FWIW, the upgrade to a 3800+ dual core, a decent Rosewill cooler, 4GB DDR2
    > RAM (533mhz) totalled well under $300. I got the RAM
    > from Fry's, the CPU and cooler from Newegg. I picked-up the drive (it was
    > a SATA, not EIDE) locally for $49.
    >
    > Now the next decision is whether to use that box for my Windows Home
    > Server. That would be a significant upgrade because it
    > would replace a fast 32-bit Athlon with a 64-bit X2. Also, it would give
    > me 1.3-TB of storage.
    >
    > And that brings me back to XP X64. It appears that it is an orphaned OS.
    > So, I'll probably get another 32-bit XP Pro package to
    > use with the redundant machine--while that OS is still available.
    >
    > Flatus
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 18, 2007
    #15
  16. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    Charlie, I love the questions about what the best graphics cards and
    wireless mice and keyboards are for WHS. It is going to take consumers a
    while to get it.

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

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

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, May 18, 2007
    #16
  17. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

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

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

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

    >>

    >
    Charlie Russel - MVP, May 18, 2007
    #17
  18. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    My thinking is that for WHS to mature into a 'one-box-holds-all'
    device, it has to have hardware resources beyond what a P4
    equivalent will provide. Hence the desire to load up with
    resources while still evaluating whether to buy into the
    concept.

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

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

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

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

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

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

    Flatus



    On Fri, 18 May 2007 14:37:49 GMT, Charlie Russel - MVP wrote
    in news::

    > Indeed it will. It's unfortunate that WHS is simply not an
    > option for me - I was excited when I first read about it,
    > and still think the potential is amazing. But there are
    > certain features that simply don't work in this version
    > (and that NDAs require me to not talk about here in public)
    > that mean I will have to wait. Meanwhile, I've got a great
    > box built with a LOT of storage that is now being converted
    > into a TiVo media server. :)
    >
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 18, 2007
    #18
  19. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    What do mean by "one-box-holds-all"? It's a server. It needs lots of
    storage but pretty plain vanilla hardware. It lives to serve files to your
    home network. That's pretty much all it is for. What else are you thinking
    it is designed to do? It certainly isn't any alternative to your client OS.

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

    >
    Colin Barnhorst, May 18, 2007
    #19
  20. Re: XP X64 hardware updates

    On Fri, 18 May 2007 20:22:50 GMT, Colin Barnhorst wrote in
    news::

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

    Flatus

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

    >>

    >
    >




    --
    We fought hard for what we earned.
    Tricare for Life is at:
    http://www.tricareforlife.org
    Tricare is at:
    http://www.tricare.org
    Flatus Ohlfahrt, May 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. Zinzan

    Software/Hardware Updates

    Zinzan, Sep 7, 2004, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    402
    Paul - xxx
    Sep 7, 2004
  2. =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=

    checking "Show Updates" doesn't reveal any Windows XP updates

    =?Utf-8?B?d2xzNTA4?=, May 24, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    5
    Views:
    678
    Martin S.
    May 26, 2006
  3. =?Utf-8?B?RWxsaW90IEh1ZGdpbnM=?=

    Why is there an x86 emu if a processor is x86-64?

    =?Utf-8?B?RWxsaW90IEh1ZGdpbnM=?=, Jul 23, 2006, in forum: Windows 64bit
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    654
  4. Daniel
    Replies:
    11
    Views:
    608
  5. markm75
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    1,092
    S.SubZero
    Jan 9, 2008
Loading...

Share This Page