Kurt
Member
Registered: 23rd Oct 05
Location: Hi
User status: Offline
|
where do i get it? any difference to 32bit?
pretty much i have 4gb of ram and 32bit xp only support 3gb..
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
http://www.corsasport.co.uk/board/viewthread.php?tid=461691
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
Doesn't help with where to get it though, i acquired it from the usual sources
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
[FruitBooTer Mode]waist of time mate, put DOS on there, who needs anything more than 8bit OS[/FruitBooTer Mode]
support for XP64 'is' there, it does work, but its entirely upto you.
I'd dualboot it for a while if you can, get everything setup as you like it, then take the plung fully and job off the 32bit partition.
You will have some issues with any older hardware/software which you may be using (legacy scanners and printers for example)
[Edited on 31-10-2008 by PaulW]
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
http://www.scan.co.uk/Product.aspx?WebProductId=487362&Product=Microsoft+Windows+XP+Professional+x64+SP2c+Single+Pack+(OEM)
[Edited on 31-10-2008 by PaulW]
|
Cavey
Member
Registered: 11th Nov 02
Location: Derby
User status: Offline
|
I've not had any problems with my OS since i installed it, everything seems to work fine on it 
Saying that, i don't really use my PC for games, so probably why i haven't come across any problems
[Edited on 31-10-2008 by Cavey]
|
Kurt
Member
Registered: 23rd Oct 05
Location: Hi
User status: Offline
|
I dont use mine for games anymore tbh. mainly music and movies and internet..
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Will you be paying?
Either way i'd go for vista 64 instead.
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
If not already using Vista, I'd still stick with XP tbh...
http://www.theregister.co.uk/2008/04/18/ballmer_vista_incomplete/
old article, but still stands... And given how he's still recently saying companies would be better to just wait for Windows 7 and not bother with Vista, aswell as how M$ have extended XP's support lifecycle because of this & other factors, really does not bode well for Vista as a whole.
I'd only 'use' Vista if it came pre-installed on a PC I bought, I wouldn't purposely upgrade from XP for it if I still used windows.
Saying that, my laptop came with Vista, but as soon as I unboxed it, I took the drive out & just installed Gentoo on 2 new drives in RAID. The original Vista HDD is now an external ext3 drive.
|
Kurt
Member
Registered: 23rd Oct 05
Location: Hi
User status: Offline
|
I hate Vista! sister has it on her laptop.. its most nervous operating system ive ever seen!!
"are you sure your sure that your sure you want to do that"
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
That's a long time ago in the world of computers, I personally wouldn't say it still stands.
Vista does everything that XP does and vista 64 has better driver support.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by Kurt
I hate Vista! sister has it on her laptop.. its most nervous operating system ive ever seen!!
"are you sure your sure that your sure you want to do that"
You can turn that off with a couple of clicks Kurt, it works exactly the same way linux does with permissions before Paul says anything.
|
Kurt
Member
Registered: 23rd Oct 05
Location: Hi
User status: Offline
|
Hmm still not a fan.. its like going from win 3.1 to 95..
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
That's a long time ago in the world of computers, I personally wouldn't say it still stands.
Vista does everything that XP does and vista 64 has better driver support.
It only has better driver support as its being forced down your throat on new PC's, so needs the support.
Least with XP, you could use old W2K drivers for most older hardware. Being forced to upgrade just to get support really pisses me off.
Plus XP doesn't need a gig of RAM just to boot at a reasonable speed. Just because you have 4gig does NOT mean you want windows using all of what is in the system.
And the way it handles permissions is nothing like how Linux does it.
[Edited on 31-10-2008 by PaulW]
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Yes it does, why have the memory sitting doing nothing? It gives it up if something requests it.
I wouldn't bother with the jump to xp64 kurt, you won't see much benefit from the extra gig in XP.
Yes it is, you log in as admin, it gives you a user token, when you do something that needs elevated privilages and allow it it gives an admin token to whatever needs it.
[Edited on 31-10-2008 by John]
|
_Allan_
Member
Registered: 24th Mar 04
User status: Offline
|
I like XP64, hasn't caused me much agro cept for the flash player issues. (Just use the 32bit ie). Not had many driver issues with hardware, games or apps etc....
I've kept it on because I got a legit copy for free. I might swap over to Vista64 when I get a copy of that given.
|
PaulW
Member
Registered: 26th Jan 03
Location: Atherton, Greater Manchester
User status: Offline
|
quote:
Originally posted by John
Yes it does, why have the memory sitting doing nothing? It gives it up if something requests it.
Thats the most backwards unoptimised approach I have ever heard. The time taken to page off whatever Vista had in RAM, allocate it to something else, then page off more if/when required, its stupid... Out of interest, how much is currently paged into swap? How much RAM is actually in use??
code:
top - 23:49 3 up 9:56, 1 user, load average: 0.51, 0.28, 0.15
Tasks: 124 total, 2 running, 122 sleeping, 0 stopped, 0 zombie
Cpu(s): 2.8%us, 0.3%sy, 0.0%ni, 95.9%id, 0.0%wa, 0.8%hi, 0.2%si, 0.0%st
Mem: 3091132k total, 1078500k used, 2012632k free, 46340k buffers
Swap: 2007928k total, 0k used, 2007928k free, 394780k cached
Notice how much swap is actually in use on here... 0k... I'm also only using 1gig of RAM, still have 2gig free... And thats just normal everyday use (and with Compiz on with all its beauty). If anything is needed, the memory is free and can be used, no arsing about. If the memory gets full, THEN the Swap gets used. As soon as the memory is free'd, whatever was in swap gets moved back. How much memory does Vista use, on a bog standard install on boot...
The only time I've ever gone into Swap, was when I was compiling OpenOffice, and even then all I used was about 17k of Swap.
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
1.33gb physical memory in use when I have 4gig, I'll live.
[Edited on 01-11-2008 by John]
|
Dom
Member
Registered: 13th Sep 03
User status: Offline
|
christ, 1.3gb in use just having a browser open.... a few progs up and my XP64 system barely uses 500mb.....
Eitherway, there are differences between XP and XP64, certainly multitasking is quicker and also there are a number of programs that actually run quicker under XP64 than Vista64.
Only noticable differences between XP64 and Vista64 is all the fancy themes and the Mac Exposé rip-off (+ the headache of things being in different places), all of which can be had on XP64 (and it still uses less ram than Vista).
Each to there own though.......
|
John
Member
Registered: 30th Jun 03
User status: Offline
|
Vista handles the memory more efficiently than xp though, whats in use doesn't really make any difference as far as i'm concerned, especially since there's still another 2.5 gig available before windows starts having to give some up 
You can't say a system is faster/slower or better/worse because of amounts of physical memory in use.
|
