Porn Loader Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 however nos OS has support for that amt. (xp x64 support upto 128GB of memory only)i thought windows 2k3 enterprise was numa aware? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Innocent Devil Posted February 23, 2006 Share Posted February 23, 2006 may be/PAE swich allows it 2 address upto 64GB Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelico_Payne Posted February 26, 2006 Author Share Posted February 26, 2006 What about Win64 APIs ??is there any ??@DaemonforceAbout Windows installation timeIt always need moooore time 2 install such a big (Vista is abt 3GB) os compared 2 win xp (~550MB)But why windows setup is very slow compared 2 Linux ??I install win xp in 20 mins ,end up with < 1 GB hdd consumed (of course nLited)Then i install SuSE Linux 10 OSS in 30 to 40 mins and it trasferres abt 6GBSo inherantly windows setup is slow Well, look how much time it took to start project such as MiroWinX, Windows GE, Slimming down WindowsXP,.. Someone will do the same for Vista, when we learn enough about her (xp x64 support upto 128GB of memory only) yeah 128 GB is peanuts,... But if you comapre x32 Vista and x32 WindowsXP, which is better, from point of : 1.Usability 2.Performace (file, games, audio-video editing,..) 3.Funcionality (what can u do what u couldn't in XP, and what can u do better) 4.Inovation (what's new alltogether) 5.Enterprise (improvment regarding buisness applicability) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Windows XP 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit are both already good operating systems. What is the whole point of Vista then? Who really needs it when Windows XP is already a good OS? At this point, Vista seems way overrated. It seems extremely bloated and will only take up signifcantly more system resources just for a more pretty GUI. That will suck for resource intensive foreground applications. I would just stick with Windows XP as it is already a good OS. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemonforce Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Windows XP 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit are both already good operating systems. What is the whole point of Vista then? Who really needs it when Windows XP is already a good OS? At this point, Vista seems way overrated. It seems extremely bloated and will only take up signifcantly more system resources just for a more pretty GUI. That will suck for resource intensive foreground applications. I would just stick with Windows XP as it is already a good OS.The point is support. Hell I would go back to OS/2 if it could support everything I want. =/Windows 2000 needs to retire like NT. Windows XP has been out for so long that it's reaching the mid-point of its life. Windows Server 2003 is still going strong. I see what you're saying though. I used to have just one computer and it was full of legacy hardware. I still go back to it when something on this computer gets fubar'd. Vista p***es me off. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Windows XP 32-bit and Windows XP 64-bit are both already good operating systems. What is the whole point of Vista then? Who really needs it when Windows XP is already a good OS? At this point, Vista seems way overrated. It seems extremely bloated and will only take up signifcantly more system resources just for a more pretty GUI. That will suck for resource intensive foreground applications. I would just stick with Windows XP as it is already a good OS.The point is support. Hell I would go back to OS/2 if it could support everything I want. =/Windows 2000 needs to retire like NT. Windows XP has been out for so long that it's reaching the mid-point of its life. Windows Server 2003 is still going strong. I see what you're saying though. I used to have just one computer and it was full of legacy hardware. I still go back to it when something on this computer gets fubar'd. Vista p***es me off.Why not let Windows XP continue to be supported by all the latest hardware and software for a long long time? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelico_Payne Posted February 27, 2006 Author Share Posted February 27, 2006 To whom it may concern, I'm downloadin latest Vista x32 built for manual testing..Any good testing programs out there ? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Daemonforce Posted February 27, 2006 Share Posted February 27, 2006 Why not let Windows XP continue to be supported by all the latest hardware and software for a long long time?It's at the five year stage where support for it(should) starts to drop off. You don't see the latest hardware and software being supported on NT4. o_OThat's how Microsoft makes their money. You buy an operating system for one period of time...It expires after 10 years...You buy a new one with new licenses and features.Any good testing programs out there ?VMware! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Angelico_Payne Posted February 28, 2006 Author Share Posted February 28, 2006 Why not let Windows XP continue to be supported by all the latest hardware and software for a long long time?It's at the five year stage where support for it(should) starts to drop off. You don't see the latest hardware and software being supported on NT4. o_OThat's how Microsoft makes their money. You buy an operating system for one period of time...It expires after 10 years...You buy a new one with new licenses and features.Any good testing programs out there ?VMware! Ok, downladed both Workstation and Server.. let the testing commence! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
sev7en Posted March 19, 2006 Share Posted March 19, 2006 Vista looks awesome but it's really resource-hungry: it needs 1Gb of RAM... x64 Windows is better for me! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Link21 Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Vista looks awesome but it's really resource-hungry: it needs 1Gb of RAM... x64 Windows is better for me!I agree Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why would one buy an x64 version of Windows, only to run it with less than 4GB of RAM? One of the main benefits of 64bit is the ability to address large amounts of RAM... Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Mr Snrub Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Maybe I'm misunderstanding, but why would one buy an x64 version of Windows, only to run it with less than 4GB of RAM? One of the main benefits of 64bit is the ability to address large amounts of RAM...For me it was the free update from my retail XP Pro when the promotion was run last year, the fact that rootkits do not (yet?) affect 64-bit versions of Windows, plus the ability to run 64-bit virtual machines for repro environments.Had no 16-bit legacy code issues to be concerned about, and even though I don't have any 64-bit drivers for my printer (thank you so much HP) I can use the compatible ones in the OS in their stead.I'm still intrigued as to how it can be an "ancient" question of which is better, an OS which is not in widespread use or one which is not yet even at beta 2 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
cluberti Posted March 21, 2006 Share Posted March 21, 2006 Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ophiel Posted April 8, 2006 Share Posted April 8, 2006 s/w ppl build x64 versions of x86 appsI also have to state that building an x64 version of a 32bit application shouldn't be hard for most vendors - assuming they aren't using direct access to functions and are using the default exposed Win32 APIs, a relatively simple code review and recompile using an x64 compiler should be all that is needed. Now if a vendor uses filter drivers, direct access to functions, built-in application memory management outside the NT memory manager, or any other such type function then yes, building an x64 version of that application will require some work.u don't have a f***in clue. it's actually quite painstaking to make sure all your code is portable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
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 accountSign in
Already have an account? Sign in here.
Sign In Now