Jump to content
MSFN is made available via donations, subscriptions and advertising revenue. The use of ad-blocking software hurts the site. Please disable ad-blocking software or set an exception for MSFN. ×

x64 WindowsXP OR x64 Windows Vista


Recommended Posts


What about Win64 APIs ??

is there any ??

@Daemonforce

About Windows installation time

It 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 6GB

So 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)
:blink:

yeah 128 GB is peanuts,... :thumbup

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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites

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 post
Share on other sites
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_O

That'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 post
Share on other sites

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_O

That'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 post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...

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 post
Share on other sites
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 post
Share on other sites
  • 3 weeks later...
s/w ppl build x64 versions of x86 apps

I 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 post
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
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    No registered users viewing this page.

×
×
  • Create New...