Windows XP 32 bit or 64?

M

Metzzen1

New Member
So i just build my new system(DFI lanparty ut sli-dr expert, 3800+ X@, 7900gt,blablabla. well i installed xp 64 bit because a friend bought it, never used it and sold it to me for $30 unopened. well im wondering if i should just stick with regular 32 bit. already im running into tons of problems like non of my stuff being compatible, that stuff includes mobo drivers, vid card drivers, and everyday programs like AIM.

tell me what i should do? should i keep the 64 bit and just search for new drivers that support 64 bit or should i switch back to my old 32 bit
 
The easy way would be to revert to the 32bit version of Windows to run all of your favorites as well as having all drivers handy. The manufacturers's site would be the place to look for XP 64bit drivers for your hardwares. The 64bit version however is pointed more at commercial not private users for the business environment.

Most of the backward compatability to 32bit apps would be those that would run on XP Pro not the Home edition. The home version of Vista would have to take into account the large volume of 32bit applications on the market and still in use though.
 
once again pc eye is the answer man. well i think im oging to go back to 32 bit reguardless. i can do it free so whynot.
 
Hey I'm sticking with the 32bit XP for the time being until I grab a new case for a dual OS setup on a second drive along with a pair of 400gb SATAs. Then I can run a few different OSs like Vista on the second and keep XP running on the primary. Well that's a thought for the next couple of years anyway.
 
ahhhh

well went ahead and installed the 32 bit instead and man everything works so much better and smoother, so nice when you have the correct drivers. only thing weird is now when i scroll up and down with my mouth instead of being flickably fast like it used to be now it is SLOW like it has to reload the page each time it goes down a notch. gay
 
Sounds like you're running the default video drivers... But yeah, 32bit is the way to go. I hear about endless compatability issues with x64. Does Vista support 64 bit software? Hmm, I might do a little research...
 
To answer that last question,

"Windows Vista x64 To Require Signed Drivers
Linked by Thom Holwerda on 2006-01-21 22:42:55 UTC, submitted by PlatformAgnostic
"With little fanfare, Microsoft just announced that the x64 version of Windows Vista will require all kernel-mode code to be digitally signed. This is very different than the current WHQL program, where the user ultimately decides how they want to handle unsigned drivers. Vista driver developers must obtain a Publisher Identity Certificate (PIC) from Microsoft. Microsoft says they won't charge for it, but they require that you have a Class 3 Commercial Software Publisher Certificate from Verisign. This costs $500 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities" http://www.osnews.com/story.php?news_id=13388
 
This costs $500 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities"

So in my mind this is both good and bad. on one side it would be alot more difficult for some dusch bag to make up a little virus but it would also be just as hard for some tech somewhere to make some of the programs we all use and love.
 
Unlike XP that came out with a third 64bit version in 2005 Vista will start off with 5 main versions with some having custom options available. What will stop a good number of people from upgrading to Vista is the minimum system requirements announced in one article seen in PC Magazine.

"May 18

Thursday, Microsoft announced its official recommended hardware requirements for Windows Vista operating system.

Vista will be the most demanding operating system Microsoft has sold to date, and the company suggests that machines running Vista’s Premium version, which includes the Windows Aero experience, have at least a 1GHz processor, 1GB of RAM, and a Direct X9-capable 3D graphics system." The column on this can be read at http://abcnews.go.com/Technology/ZDM/story?id=1977797
 
Metzzen1 said:
This costs $500 [EUR 412] per year, and as the name implies, is only available to commercial entities"

So in my mind this is both good and bad. on one side it would be alot more difficult for some dusch bag to make up a little virus but it would also be just as hard for some tech somewhere to make some of the programs we all use and love.
Click to expand...
This is for drivers, not programs.
 
It's not that surprising when someone is running an older complete system that was a hand-me-down or sitting in a closet for a few years. Personally I update every few years in a large step to pass over cpus like Durons and P2s as well as now planning on the early 2007 build to jump into an Opteron if not AM2 system. I'm favoring the Opteron more for stability however.
 
I have Windows XP Pro w/SP2 and Windows XP Pro w/SP2 x64, im going to do a side-by-side comparison between the two, showing if the x64 edition performs better or the same. I should have it done in a few hours.
 
That will depend on what you plan to compare the two of them to. In a way it would be like trying to compare 98 to 95 in a sense. XP Pro is somewhat backward capable to 32bit as 98 was to 16bit apps run under 95. You wouldn't compare the contrast between NTFS and FAT32 however.
 
I actually found that it would be too hard to compare, especially since most benchmarks arent even 64 Bit. But i did some googling and i found that the x64 version did about the same in some tests, did slightly worse in other, and performed alot better in others.
 
Xp in general reports the least amount of time to load to the desktop. To determine if that was true for both 64bit and 32bit editions you would need to run those both on the same hardware setup. Of course that would have to be with one program that would easily runs on the two. The test there would have to be on a basic installation to have nothing else interfere. That would also take having a system set aside just that. PC mag and others are obviously sponsored to write reviews where they just slap together some selected hardwares to benchmark them along with different versions of Windows.
 
What i was planning on doing was creating two seperate partitions of the same size, install a fresh version of XP (32bit and 64bit) on each partition, run Windows Update, and get the latest mobo and video drivers, and run the same tests on both of them to compare.
 
You may have to figure out which one is the oldest there since your boot.ini file will determine which will be the default OS. On a system just looked at here with the dual setup of both 32bit versions of XP the primary was setup on a second partition as the default and failed to load the Pro edition. While the option to load Pro was clearly seen and could be entered only the home version would load. That drive ended up being wiped and returned to a single XP Home primary. Make you do this on an extra drive with your present unplugged when you go to do it. XP will automatically detect that and add it to the mbr on the new installations.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top