Is there any point to Windows XP x64 Yet?

[Gerard V]

I have been wondering about Windows XP Professional x64 edition.

I've looked about these forums a bit, and it seems that for the most part, few applications would benefit from such a move, and there would be complexities with getting 64 drivers for hardware etc.

I am mostly using Avisynth, QuEnc, and VirtualDub in that order of frequency, am I right in thinking that as at today, most Avisynth functionality is not available in a 64-bit version?

There is a 64bit version of vdub, but I gleaned from various posts that few plugin filters have been migrated.

With this in mind would XP x64 be much value to me, perhaps through better memory usage? Could I continue to run 32 bit apps (albeit with no performance gains)?

Your opinions and thoughts gratefuly received.

[HardwareGeek]

about Windows XP Professional x64 edition.

... would XP x64 be much value to me, perhaps through better memory usage? Could I continue to run 32 bit apps (albeit with no performance gains)?Hi

I run 64-bit Windows XP (x64), & while I love it, I really can't recommend it to anyone, unless you enjoy being an early adopter still--even tho' the OS has been around for over a year. 64-bit Windows is supposed to come into its own with Vista. For right now, the technology still has some rough edges.

For example, my 64-bit IE browser is faster than my 32-bit browsers, but the interface with other applications is sometimes problematic, as with the Flash Player and some other plugins. It's just annoying to come across sites now and then that one's 64-bit browser can't handle, so I use my 32-bit browsers instead.

Most 32-bit applications work fine under x64. Every now and then you'll come across one that doesn't. All of my DV & encoding tools work fine under x64, but I do not use any of the ones that you mention, so I can't guarantee anything.

With encoding in general, the bottleneck is the CPU, not the amount of memory that you can address, so 64-bit should give no significant advantage in this case.

[Gerard V]

Hardwaregeek - Thanks. Its much as I suspected. :cool:

[Sharktooth]

Unless softwares are compiled specifically to take advantage of the new features on the 64bit cpus (for example more registers).

[Anacondo]

Gaming is a pain in the ass, too, specially if you like old games.

I switched back to Win32 for this very reason.

[Eretria-chan]

Time to move on from the DOS era.

[HardwareGeek]

Unless softwares are compiled specifically to take advantage of the new features on the 64bit cpus (for example more registers).

@Sharktooth

Good to know there's someone out there taking advantage of 64-bit.

Keep up the good work.

[UofC]

Short answer is no. Wait a while for vista to come then wait a while longer for them to work the bugs out.

I think Windows 64 will be one of those back shelf forgotten OSs.

[reepa]

Are there any concrete benefits for switching to a 64-bit OS besides having more than 4GB of memory space and larger integers?

[Eretria-chan]

More registers. If the program is compiled to use them.

[HardwareGeek]

Are there any concrete benefits for switching to a 64-bit OS ...64-bit IE is noticably faster than all my 32-bit browsers. Maybe when other 32-bit programs are ported to 64-bit, they will show similar improvement? Problem is, there's compatibility problems with some IE plugins, so I still use 32-bit browsers.

64-bit Windows Vista is right a round the corner, & almost all CPUs sold these days are 64-bit capable.

I don't know when 64-bit will take off, but it's best to be prepared when it does.

In the meantime, you can still run almost all 32-bit programs under a 64-bit OS. You can't run 64-bit software on 32-bit hardware, however.

[writersblock29]

@Gerard V

I made the upgrade to X64 on one of my machines, and I've noticed a slight improvement in performance with standard 32-bit software... but the word to remember is the word "slight." Video encodes are such a lengthy process, let's say Windows X64 gives you a 15-minute gain over what you might be used to under the standard 32-bit XP Pro. That fifteen minutes will mean very little to you: If you already have to find something else to do for two or three hours while your computer chews on a movie... couldn't you have killed another fifteen minutes while you were at it? :)

I can't complain about Windows X64 for its performance -- I've found it to be very reliable and rock-steady. On the other hand, mind you, I will say the same thing about the traditional Windows XP Pro.

As far as a list of "cons" go?

A) Drivers are a pain in the butt (most hardware drivers are still in beta from the vendors, so there's a degree of risk involved) to make sure you have tracked down... make sure they are availible before making the financial step of purchasing or trying X64. You might find certain hardware items -- certain printers and video cards, for example -- still have no support at all, with little planned in the future.

B) Very few antivirus solutions exist for X64. Some are available -- but you can't get overly choosy. Avast! has a good, free, X64-compatible solution, but you'll find yourself unable to use the rest of your Norton 2006 subscription if that's what you've already shelled money for. Most spyware removers still work (the Microsoft Windows Defender X64 beta I never could get to work right, but went back to 32-bit Spyware Doctor from PCTools -- which works just fine under Windows X64). Spybot S&D seems to have no issues with X64, either. This is a sticky spot. Beware!

C) 16-bit applications won't work at all under X64. There's not too many of these around anymore, so this really isn't much of an issue -- on the other hand, if you use a lot of legacy software (keep in mind some installers for other programs still use 16-bit) it's worth considering.

D) You're right! Avisynth is still centered in 32-bit environments, with 64-bit plugins still being experimented with. Most MPEG encoders are still 32-bit (even though CCE has recently launched their very spendy SP2, which is supposedly capible of 64-bit encoding). So program support is still a ways off from being where it should be.

E) Sure, you get around 32-bit memory restrictions when you do run the occasional 64-bit program. But how many desktop motherboards -- other than servers -- are capible of holding more than 4GB of RAM to begin with? Your hardware limits what your software doesn't right now if you're using standard desktop motherboards.

My advice? If you want to have the operating system on hand so that you can neatly move into it as you upgrade your system(s), go right on ahead without fear; it's steady enough, and does give a slight edge to what you already run. But in all honesty, I'd wait on Vista, since Microsoft seems far more interested in developing this rather than pumping more energy into Windows X64. Since the majority of what you've stated you use is pretty much stuck in 32-bit territory, you might profit much more yet to simply wait and remain with Windows XP as-is for now... see where this all goes. Look at it this way (if history's a good teacher): If everything shifts to 64-bit, you'll be eventually forced into upgrading anyway, right?

[Gerard V]

Thank you writersblock29 for a very thorough and considered answer. And yes, I have decided to wait for Vista and for it to stabilise. :cool:

[Eretria-chan]

I have to point out that that 15 minutes that you gain can be tremendous when encoding many files. !5, 30, 45, 1 hour, and so on. You'll gain tremendously, which in turn, should save your computer from being on for a little less, which in turn saves on your electricity bill.
And it takes a lot less time to complete the entire work.

[HardwareGeek]

15 minutes that you gain can be tremendous when encoding many files. ...I doubt that running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit OS shows significant improvement over running them on a 32-bit OS.

However, I would be most happy if someone could prove me wrong by pointing out some tangible benchmarks.

[writersblock29]

@HardwareGeek

I can see if I can pull something off toward that end if I can find a little time. Both of my main systems are configured identically with one exception: The operating system. So I'm running one system on XP 32-bit and the other on XP X64. Both are using AMD64 Athlon 3200+ single-core processors with 2GB of PC3200 DDR. Of course Chaos Theory would dictate that there's still going to be some minor differences from system to sytem that might throw the results: Perhaps one system has a program lurking in the background (and just as maybe, perhaps that's where my perception of greater performance in X64 REALLY comes from), spyware, adware, registry values, percentage of good sectors in both the hard drives and DRAM, ect into infinity. But based off of observation, I've absolutely noticed smoother performance across the board on most everything I run using the X64; in fact, that's my favorite sytem to use these days. It's not enough to make me blindy recommend Windows X64, since I doubt if most people will see much benifit in whatever time they'd save (as stated above to Gerard V) and they would, indeed, need some aspirin while tracking down drivers and setting up their systems. Right now... it's a good "wait-and-see" period, what with Vista's beta and all.

[Eretria-chan]

I doubt that running 32-bit applications on a 64-bit OS shows significant improvement over running them on a 32-bit OS.

However, I would be most happy if someone could prove me wrong by pointing out some tangible benchmarks.
That would be if the apps were 64-bit instead of 32-bit.

[HardwareGeek]

That would be if the apps were 64-bit instead of 32-bit.
I see. thx for the clarification. pc

[HardwareGeek]

Both of my main systems are configured identically with one exception: The operating system
That makes your setup ideal for running some benchmarks. Benchmarking take up a good bit of one's time, however. :(
based off of observation, I've absolutely noticed smoother performance across the board on most everything I run using the X64
My x64 (& apps on it) is very smooth also.
that's my favorite sytem to use these days. [However,] It's not enough to make me blindy recommend Windows X64, since I doubt if most people will see much benifit in whatever time they'd save
Totaly agree.

[writersblock29]

@Gerard V

[Qouted from one of my own previous posts]: "(even though CCE has recently launched their very spendy SP2, which is supposedly capible of 64-bit encoding)."

Nope. Inaccurate. I appologize! I just checked Cinemacraft's website, and it lists CCE SP2 as compatible with Windows X64 in 32-bit mode only. I had made my previous assumption based off of this comment, from Custom Technology's release notes: "- Enables to work on 64 bits." Too bad; if ever there was a program that could profit from a wider usage of system memory, it's an MPEG encoder. *Shrug!* Sorry about that!

[BillB]

My Q is, is there any point to XP 64 at all? The PC (Peasant Computer) industry seems to be dieing a fast death. IBM and the other big guys are tooling for business users only, and seem to be dropping their toy departments. WXP 64 bit OS's are being over run by Linux, both by geekies and professional business system installers. With friends in the Buz, I get this feedback, and it scares me to know maybe someday, computers as we now know them, will not be available to the public. I think I'll buy a few P4, 300 boxes, and lots of ram, plus other neat parts to horde. Get all the Linux stuff I can learn. Like MS and Intel changing as they just did, nothing lasts forever! Gee, I miss DOS!

[Eretria-chan]

P4? Are you out of your mind? :/
And don't say you miss DOS >_<
...And no, there seems to be little point in XP 64-bit for now. Microsoft destroyed its glory for me and the benefits of 64-bit are too small to make any big difference (oh and microsoft's choice of dropping MMX was a big mistake too).

[squid_80]

Microsoft destroyed its glory for me and the benefits of 64-bit are too small to make any big difference (oh and microsoft's choice of dropping MMX was a big mistake too).
They didn't drop MMX from the OS, their compiler just doesn't handle it. Doesn't mean it can't be used.

[Eretria-chan]

Well, the problem was that it caused a lot of trouble.

[HardwareGeek]

is there any point to XP 64 at all?
I think it's more of a workstation OS. I would think some 64-bit workstation applications could benefit from the added memory that you are allowed to address.

Even though it's called XP, it was built off the Windows Server 2003 kernel.