Has XP 64 got lead in its Boots?

Discussion in 'Windows 64bit' started by Guest, Jan 1, 2006.

  1. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I have been running XP 64 for the last week and in comparison with XP Pro
    this runs like a "Dog".
    I'm talking about general operations like opening Windows Explorer or even
    opening a Word document.
    Now I have a Dual core system with 4 Gig DDR2 and a nVidia 7800 GTX

    Now information should be passing through brilliantly, but I feel like I'm
    back in the Pent 3 days with 256meg RAM and an MX400

    So far I am really disappointed.
     
    Guest, Jan 1, 2006
    #1
    1. Advertisements

  2. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    Both of your examples should be roughly the same in both systems. They are
    on mine.
     
    John Barnes, Jan 2, 2006
    #2
    1. Advertisements

  3. Andre Da Costa, Jan 2, 2006
    #3
  4. Guest

    Guest Guest

    I'm not sure what you mean Andre, Word works fine on XP 64.
    John XP Pro zips along nicely, but XP 64 doesn't.
    I'm runniing dual boot so it is easy fro me to compare between the two.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #4
  5. What I meant was, I don't think you are going to get Word to open any faster
    on a 32-bit or 64-bit system. Just like how you are not gonna get them to
    save any faster, they are not written to take advantage of the 64-bit
    processing power, probably not until there is 64 bit native version of
    Microsoft Office.
    --
    --
    Andre
    Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
    Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
    http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
    FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm
     
    Andre Da Costa, Jan 2, 2006
    #5
  6. Guest

    Guest Guest

    i havent noticed a slowing effect from moving to XP 64 on my acer ferrari
    laptop infact it has become faster in start up and shut down not so much in
    application but they are mostly 32 bit ones which are being emulated
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #6
  7. Guest

    NoNoBadDog! Guest

    When you say Dual Core, do you mean AMD or Intel? If you have an Intel, you
    *DO NOT* have a dual core processor. You have two single cores "glued"
    together, and you will experience some of the symptoms you describe by using
    an Intel proc.

    Bobby
     
    NoNoBadDog!, Jan 2, 2006
    #7
  8. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Bobby, I have an Intel Dual Core CPU ( this is what we call it in Australia)

    Andre, Using Word was a bad example, but let me say this that I have 64 bit
    drivers for all the important stuff like Graphics and Sound and I found I had
    to change my ADSL from USB to Ethernet ( to get it to work )

    Just the general running of the machine seems to be slower than XP Pro.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #8

  9. ??? Sounds like AMDFanboy talk to me....
     
    Mark Gillespie, Jan 2, 2006
    #9
  10. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    There is no reason for any difference on those processes with either
    operating system with either Intel or AMD....
     
    John Barnes, Jan 2, 2006
    #10
  11. Guest

    Guest Guest

    It doesn't matter whether you have an Intel or an AMD chip, the question is
    why my XP 64 runs like a dog compared to XP Pro?
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #11
  12. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    Sorry Bob, there is no way we can tell why you are having the problem. All
    we can tell you is that we have both systems on our computers and those
    processes are not noticeably different on the two. You are going to have to
    figure out why yourself. Could be other software using machine cycles,
    could be a slow drive it is installed on, could be any number of things.
    Just 'should' not be different based on the experience of many posters
    here.
     
    John Barnes, Jan 2, 2006
    #12
  13. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    One thing you could do would be to go to pitstop.com and run the series of
    tests they have. You might get some clue from that.
     
    John Barnes, Jan 2, 2006
    #13
  14. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks John. I have 2 identicle SATA 200Gig HDD with a copy of Windows on each.
    My XP PRO is loaded with heaps of software and XP 64 only has the basics so
    one would naturally think that the XP 64 would run quicker based on access
    times so on and so forth.
    I have tried to look at it logically as well as technically but no answer
    comes to mind.
    Correct me if I'm wrong but running 32bit apps on a 64 bit system should run
    smoother and quicker as there are no bottlenecks.?????
    Also, I have been trying to find a 64bit AV program that works as my AVG
    doesn't.
    Running withoout an AV program makes one feel naked so any thoughts would be
    appreciated.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #14
  15. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Thanks John, I shall check that site out and report back
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #15
  16. Yes, but honestly, when did you last hear anyone here with an AMD, complain
    about the processor or anything related?
    I have been with this group for a year now, and I've seen Bobby ranting
    about this issue from day one almost. After a while, the phrasing of those
    remarks become ignorable and you can see that what he IS saying, is making
    perfect sense.

    However, having lived to witness the OS2 war, and it's outcome - I am not at
    all sure that this situation we're seing, wasn't carefully prepared by
    Intel. Isn't there something fishy about this whole affair? As it is, Intel
    has quite a bit of polishing to do, we - as mere costumers, have no need to
    do it for them.

    Tony. . .
     
    Tony Sperling, Jan 2, 2006
    #16
  17. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Had a look at pcpitstop. It doesn't really answer my question as it looks
    like it is there to flog off software.
    Maybe I just have to live with the difference.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #17
  18. Guest

    John Barnes Guest

    You can run the tests without any flogging of software. Just a reasonably
    decent test. I found I had a poorly connected SATA cable because that drive
    showed up slower than the other drives and should have been the same.
    Yes you should expect that in some ways x64 would run faster, but not the
    processes you mentioned. The larger number of programs you have on x86
    should slow down startup and shutdown, but not necessarily other tasks. You
    could have a very fragmented drive which could cause some slowdown.
    Many here have installed Avast free or paid A/V and except for shutdown
    problem on some computers and one poster who thinks a virus got thru, most
    seem very happy with it.
    Nod32 and etrust 7.1 have some happy posters also
     
    John Barnes, Jan 2, 2006
    #18
  19. Without knowing what processes are using the most processor time it is hard
    to say. It sounds like something is running that is using an abnormal amout
    of cpu time. x64 is not by itself the problem although something that did
    not set up right might be. None of us experience x64 as you are. My own
    experience is that everything I run on x64 outperforms the same thing on
    x86, even if only by a small margin.
     
    Colin Barnhorst, Jan 2, 2006
    #19
  20. Guest

    Guest Guest

    Okay, I checked all cables and alike then logged into XP 64.
    I ran the PCPitstop diagnostics and got a reading of 1568.
    Booted back into XP Pro and ran same diagnostics again and got a rating of
    1596
    The only yellow flag I got was the ADSL internet on both, but you get that
    here in Australia.
     
    Guest, Jan 2, 2006
    #20
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.