WinXP 64-bit vs. 32-bit
- Thread starter wixostrix
- Start date
64bit generally runs, processes, and reads at faster rates then 32bit. If you were to compare 95 to a newer version of Windows like 98-ME you notice the difference there. 85 was 16bit to 98 and newer 32bit. The main drawback at this time is the fact that the market is saturated with 32bit applications. Vista in it's 5 retail versions will offer both 32 and 64bit versions of each.
Angel.of.Death
New Member
Do you need any special hardware to run a 64 bit OS?
You can NOT run 64 bit Windows on a 32 bit processor... Don't believe a word of that nonsense.
64 bit Windows takes advantage of the additional features that are available on a 64 bit core. There are some features available on 64 bit cores that aren't available on a 32 bit core (by the way, I'm not sure which looney came up with 95 being 16 bit. It was 32 bit, just like 98. lol).
These features include additional registers, the ability to address more than 4GB of memory, large virtual address space and all kinds of other goodies. You can run 32 bit Windows on a 64 bit processor (AMD 64 or EM64T), but not the other way around. If you have a 64 bit processor and 64 bit apps I can understand you wanting to go to 64 bit Windows.
64 bit Windows takes advantage of the additional features that are available on a 64 bit core. There are some features available on 64 bit cores that aren't available on a 32 bit core (by the way, I'm not sure which looney came up with 95 being 16 bit. It was 32 bit, just like 98. lol).
These features include additional registers, the ability to address more than 4GB of memory, large virtual address space and all kinds of other goodies. You can run 32 bit Windows on a 64 bit processor (AMD 64 or EM64T), but not the other way around. If you have a 64 bit processor and 64 bit apps I can understand you wanting to go to 64 bit Windows.
"I have a HP Laptop with AMD Athlon 3200, 2GhZ.
1 - Running XP x64 was noticibly faster than XP x86
2 - HP was absolutely useless in assisting tracking down all the x64 drivers I needed (particularly Audio) and ATI's x64 Driver installation routine is/was a mess. However, if you can overcome any driver problems, then I'd recommend at least giving x64 a try." http://channel9.msdn.com/ShowPost.aspx?PostID=190494 Tell that to ?
SirKenin said:
The original release of WIN95 was a 16bit version of Windows like 3.1 before it. WIN95 PLUS! had 32bit support due to having the service pack included that came out after the initial release of 95.
Impr3ssiv3
New Member
qustion?
so all u need is a 64 bit core for 64 bit versions
so i could download the 64 bit version of vista and use it since my x2 is 64 bit
so all u need is a 64 bit core for 64 bit versions
so i could download the 64 bit version of vista and use it since my x2 is 64 bit
The main problem with running the 64bit version of either XP Pro or Vista at this time is the lack of drivers and support. Why would you want a beta of something you can't run anything on? Eventually stuff will come out like 64bit versions of current and new games along with apps.
You can go for it to see how it looks and feels. But even the 32bit beta doesn't offer much at this point. From the info I've heard Vista will offer both 32bit and 64bit releases for each of the five retail versions starting next month through january.
Archangel
VIP Member
For much Hardware, there are drivers available. ( Yes.. i am running win x64 atm, and for all my hardware, i have the drivers so far ) as long as you stick to the well known brands that is.
however,. win x64 runns a bit faster than x86 (32bit),.. on some applications it does run slower tough,.. for example,.. when i run World of Warcraft,.. i get a lower framerater than i would have with 32-bit windows,. because its running someting called WoW ( Windows on Windows ) meaning it runs some sort of extra program, to support some applications, because else they wouldnt run at all.
also,. some games are no supported with x64,. and other games have patches available for x64 ( like Farcry for example )
however,. win x64 runns a bit faster than x86 (32bit),.. on some applications it does run slower tough,.. for example,.. when i run World of Warcraft,.. i get a lower framerater than i would have with 32-bit windows,. because its running someting called WoW ( Windows on Windows ) meaning it runs some sort of extra program, to support some applications, because else they wouldnt run at all.
also,. some games are no supported with x64,. and other games have patches available for x64 ( like Farcry for example )
Geoff
VIP Member
All you need is a 64-Bit CPU.
I've used both XP Pro x64 and x86, and I havent noticed a difference. The fact is, with the x64 version there are lots of driver issues if you have hardware thats not so well known. There are also alot of programs and games that wont work on a 64-Bit OS.
I would wait until Vista before purchasing a 64-Bit operating system.
I've used both XP Pro x64 and x86, and I havent noticed a difference. The fact is, with the x64 version there are lots of driver issues if you have hardware thats not so well known. There are also alot of programs and games that wont work on a 64-Bit OS.
I would wait until Vista before purchasing a 64-Bit operating system.
Yuppers. I would actually be curious how you made out. XP 64 bit had trouble with driver support and bugs, etc. I am really curious how Vista is by comparison. Try it and let us know.
An Athlon 3200 is an AMD64 ya nut. In other words, 64 bit processor.
The original release of WIN95 was a 16bit version of Windows like 3.1 before it. WIN95 PLUS! had 32bit support due to having the service pack included that came out after the initial release of 95.
Like hell it was. Provide one source that proves this. Every KNOWLEDGEABLE tech knows that all Win9x kernels were 32bit. What it did was use what was called "real mode" to provide backwards compatibility with 16 bit apps.
An Athlon 3200 is an AMD64 ya nut. In other words, 64 bit processor.
They made a XP 3200, I installed all kinds of XP 3000 and 3200s. But he said 2ghz so that would be a 64 because the XP 3200 was 2.2ghz and the XP 3000 was 2.167ghz
Last edited:
Oui, je sais.. Mais dit lui.
Actually, you'll probably have to knock him upside the head first.
"Versions of Windows95 older than OSR2, as well as any DOS version, operate on a file system called FAT16 (or FAT12 in some cases)." http://cache.sylikc.net:8080/dd/Windows95B_FAQ/#dualboot
There's one thing for certain. You are no "knowledgable tech"!
OSR2 was again released after the initial release of 95 a 16bit version of Windows that could be dual booted with WIN 3.1. WIN95 PLUS! included OSR2 as the equivalent of what should have been called 95SE. That's when 32bit apps first saw support in the 9X family of Windows. NT was already the 32bit replacement for WIN 3.11.Here's another one for the guy who already had a bump in the head.
Reasons to Retain FAT32
Dual and Multi-booting: If you want to install Windows 95, 98 or Millennium Edition with Windows XP using NTFS then the boot volume must be formatted as FAT32, not NTFS; this is because the older OSen must be installed on the boot volume. FAT32 is the only file common file system that the older OSen support that will also work with XP using NTFS. Windows 95 OSR2, Windows 98, Windows 2000, and Windows XP support FAT32 volumes.
http://kadaitcha.cx/ntfs.html
The Atholon XP3200 ran at 2.205ghz often rounded to 2.21ghz.
Last edited:
PC eye; The Atholon XP3200 ran at 2.205ghz often rounded to 2.21ghz.[/quote said:
Someone's having a bad night I see.
I won $17,000 at poker, smoked a fatty and hung out with my wife and watched Family Guy and Simpsons and hung out with some friends. I can assure you that there is nothing bad about it.
