Jump to content

XP 64 VS XP Pro Speed


mn072065
 Share

Recommended Posts

Hi. Just received my Dell system which shipped with XP64 OS. My question is since lots of my programs are not compatible, If I would go back to XP Pro, will I loose speed. Is the Operating system XP 64 faster than XP Pro. ALso I have 4GB of memory at 667 MHz, will XP Pro support that. Thanks All.

Link to comment
Share on other sites


Hi. Just received my Dell system which shipped with XP64 OS. My question is since lots of my programs are not compatible, If I would go back to XP Pro, will I loose speed. Is the Operating system XP 64 faster than XP Pro. ALso I have 4GB of memory at 667 MHz, will XP Pro support that. Thanks All.

Running lower memory 32bit programs, no you will not lose any speed.

What programs exactly are not compatible though? In my experience almost everything is compatible. You might consider finding alternative programs that are compatible.

XP pro does not support 4gb. You will only be able to make use of about 3gb of it. And it won't be super effective at that as far as I know.

The 667mhz doesn't matter.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I thought 32-bit XP only supported 2 GB for userland apps, while it reserves 2 GB of address space for the kernel.

There is also a mode where it gives you 3 GB for apps, but reserves only 1 GB for the kernel. I forget how to enable this mode exactly. Also, it sounds like it could slow your PC down potentially (e.g. arbitrary limit of 1 GB address space on swap file / disk cache when it could use up to all memory with 64-bit XP).

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would say that while you won't see any sort of jump in speed, you usually see less freezing.

There is also that fact that it is based on a newer version of the NT kernal and is more stable though

I thought 32-bit XP only supported 2 GB for userland apps, while it reserves 2 GB of address space for the kernel.

I beleive it is that an individual App cannot be given more than 2 gigs of ram

Edited by ender341
Link to comment
Share on other sites

As far as I know, I thought XP 64 bit is just as fast as Windows 32 bit. I did not know however that it was based on Windows 2003 as I read in some post. I dont know if it is worth getting 64 bit since i feel like there are not enough drivers and other software available to make it worth people's time unless people are using this for mission critical stuff and not to play games and so on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

amd 64 bits processor is more stable, more compatible with 32 bits apps (there is a diff with intel´s itanium), this one keep program files folder for 64 bits and other program files folder for 32.

what i dont know is if xp pro 32 bits would work, ill try in almost a month coze im building by myself my own pc.

this have:

NF4AST-A9 biostar motherboard

DVD-+R +-RW Double Layer (X2)

Radeon 9550 256 MB of RAM graphics card

ATHLON 64 Bits 3000+ AMD processor

WireLess G pci card

still i need buy:

Hard Drive SATA

Memory Card (thinking on Corsair XPerts at corsairmicro.com coze clear case:D)

an optional floppy drive mmmm i dont know :D

ill see

cheers!

Edited by Maxfutur
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Driver's can be a bit of a problem. But most new stuff does have 64 bit driver's, and a lot of stuff is intergrated on mobo's nowday's and if you have a 64bit mobo and the company dosn't have driver's, that company is a POS.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Hi,

I use it on a ASUS NCCH-DL motherboard, Dual Xeon 2.8 GHz processors, 4GB DDR, 3Dlabs VP990 Pro graphics card (512MB), with Adaptec SCSI 320 adapter, Seagate SCSI 320 HDDs, and for C++ compiler.

I'm very pleased with it.

Cheers,

Jean

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Have you guys noticed any trouble with spyware getting on the OS if you surf using IE? Has the problem carried over? Or do you guys use the 64 bit IE if there is such a thing....so that the spyware and so on are not effective?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

On XP 32bit, userland processes are given 2GB of virtual address space, and the kernel is given 2GB of virtual address space. You can change this to 3GB/1GB by using the /3GB switch in the boot.ini file, but it does borrow virtual address space that would otherwise be used by kernel processes to give the extra 1GB virtual address space to processes, so it should only be used if you have processes that are actually attempting to allocate and use more than 2GB of virtual address space (Exchange can sometimes need this, as can SQL, for instance).

On XP 64bit, a lot changes. XP 64 bit can address 16TB of virtual address space, rather than 4GB, thus making 8TB of space available for userland processes and 8TB of space available for kernel processes. The system cache available goes up from 1GB (32bit) to 1TB, and the kernel memory pools increase as well, for both paged (from 470MB to 128GB) and nonpaged (from 256MB to 128GB) pools.

Currently, Windows 64bit versions have a limit placed on them in that the cannot access more than 1TB of *physical memory* (they can still allocate up to 16TB of *virtual address space*) in the machine, but it's a fabricated limit within the Windows code itself, not the architecture (the 64bit architecture can address 16TB of physical memory, but Windows 64bit can only access 1TB).

Edited by cluberti
Link to comment
Share on other sites

it's a fabricated limit within the Windows code itself, not the architecture (the 64bit architecture can address 16TB of physical memory, but Windows 64bit can only access 1TB).

Which is still a decent amount IMO :P:P

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.


×
×
  • Create New...