What do you think about Windows XP64?

[Sirber]

IMO the OS is not ready yet. Lots of missing drivers and incompatible softwares.

Doesn't work:
* PGP 9
* HP LaserJet 1012 USB (via linux)

Works not cool (using 32bit internet explorer):
* 7zip
* TortoiseSVN

[spuddog]

Unfortunatly, Microsoft treats thier customers as beta testers and charges them for the priviledge.

[Doom9]

welll.. lacking drivers and apps that are not 64 bit compatible are not really Microsoft's fault, are they?

[Sirber]

Yes and No. They could have allowed 32bit stuff to interract with 64bit stuff, in their "emulation", for drivers and apps.

But, every new windows it's the same. Need to wait 6 months to get the new drivers. Gonna revert 32bit ASAP.

[Sirber]

After each reboot, my ATI card gets overclocked. Also, My WS crash:

http://www.detritus.qc.ca/100_1928.jpg

[luders]

I think it definetly depends on what you have hardware wise. I really like it. All my hardware works great and I am glad that the memory tweaks like 3GB switches and 2GB caps are gone. I have some programs that just happen to work better. The only thing I have run into that I wish I could use is daemon tools.

If it works good enough now for ya, it is only going to get better and as 64 bit stuff comes out you get to actually use it.

[twist3d]

Just my 2c:
I think that dual-core processors are bigger revolution than the 64-bit processors (wish I had one :rolleyes: ). I have a A64 3200+ and was too surprised how unfinished the whole windows x64 was (and yes, I had 64-bit drivers for every piece of hw) and after a couple of days, I re-installed the good old windows xp sp2.
Maybe after longhorn release we get decent software for 64-bit os (go search around internet, there really isn't software for x64).

[Sirber]

Dual Core is great indeed, but a 64bit linux server would kick ass managing a database :D

[Kostarum Rex Persia]

Yes,Windows XP64 sucks.

[luders]

You wish!

[Mug Funky]

my only experience with it is it's great at rebooting. not too good at actually running though.

maybe i'm a luddite, but when asked what i prefer between XP and x64, i say 2k.

[thor300]

Paul Otellini was right, theres no need for 64 bit on the desktop, but ok, AMD fans need something to brag about. 64 is good on the paper, and thats all its good for this time around.

[Doom9]

Paul Otellini was right, theres no need for 64 bit on the desktop,Then why is every new intel chip 64 bit capable? the video tools that are available on 64 bit are actually faster, like it or not (seemingly regardless of your CPU manufacturer).

[thor300]

Ofcourse Intel had to come up with 64 bit support on the desktop also, its not like they had a choice. Im aware of some apps running faster, like the 64bit Farcry and so on. With todays stability and driver reliability its too risky for most users to run 64bit XP, it remains an alternative for the enthusiast. As mentioned by someone here already, "think that dual-core processors are bigger revolution than the 64-bit processors". You just dont see the same encoding speeds on singlecore 64bit as those of a dualcore running 32bit. AMD took us all in the wrong direction with the 64-bit "nerd"-cpu's, this is absolutely not for everyone (yet).

[Kostarum Rex Persia]

thor300,I think that you,obviosly,don't like at all AMD.But,I don't agree with you.AMD is take the right direction,dual core proccesors are great improvment for all of us.

And about same encoding speed on single and dualcore!!!! That's not true,dualcore is significantly faster than single core in encoding speed,especialy if codec(like DivX Helium beta edition,optimised for dual-core) has fully support for dual-core machines.

If you don't believe me,please visit http://labs.divx.com/archives/000055.html

[thor300]

Sorry Kostarum, English is obviously not the native language for the two us :). Thats exactly what i wrote, Dualcore IS faster (compared to a singlecore 64bit CPU) and lives up to the expectations, while AMD 64 was a big disappointment for those who believed its 64bit arcitecture would revolutionize desktop performance.

I have a D830 myself, and encoding and other videostuff is like a dream now, fast without slowing down other programs. But with 64bit, just small improvements, barely worth mentioning with the disadvantages of 64bit OS as of today. For sure dualcore is the way to go, never mind 64 bit, let it mature first. I like the advantages the day they are substantial, untill then i stick with 32 bit OS.

But to comment on your AMD dualcore statements, the X2 is a bit hyped up, not much value for money, luckily the X2 3800+ will let AMD compete with Intel 830. Untill X2 3800 is out in the stores Intel remains the only dual core system that gives value for money.

[Kostarum Rex Persia]

Untill X2 3800 is out in the stores Intel remains the only dual core system that gives value for money.

Yes,I agree with you.But AMD dualcore chips are expensive because AMD proccesors have integrated memory controler in it.That's the reason why is AMD dulacore chips so expensive.

[thor300]

This is starting to get a little off-topic, but ok with me :)

Athlon64 single core also got integrated memory controller but still cost less than a comparable Pentium 4, so i dont believe thats the reason.

[Revgen]

What do you think about Windows XP64?

I think it's another Microsoft OS.

And it shows. ;)

[thor300]

"Another Microsoft OS", like in "windows sucks, Linux rules"? If you cant run WinXP Pro without problems for months and years its more likely something wrong with your hardware. First time i tried XP was with an Athlon XP, when i changed cpu brand i also changed my mind about Win XP, incredible stable.

[Revgen]

All new Microsoft OS's have too many flaws when they are first released.

Windows XP AKA Windows 2000 SE was stable when it was first released because it wasn't really a new OS at all. It's just a Windows 2000 core with a few additions and all the kinks worked out.

XP64 is a brand new OS. And it's flaws are self-evident.

I'm not a pro-Linux anti-microsoft guy. All I'm saying is that I'm not going to spend too much time or money trying to setup an OS that is still obviously in a beta stage and really shouldn't be available to the public.

[Joe Fenton]

That's why I tell people wait for the first service pack before getting the latest OS. That applies to Apple as well as Microsoft.

[Doom9]

setup an OS that is still obviously in a beta stageWhy do you say so? Just because drivers aren't available and apps haven't been ported? Both is not Microsoft's fault. The day Windows NT, the first real 32 bit Microsoft OS came out, both drivers and apps were also lacking. It is not Microsoft's job to provide either for you, it's the job of hardware and software makers.

[Revgen]

It is not Microsoft's job to provide either for you, it's the job of hardware and software makers.

That's true.

But IMHO Microsoft should wait until at least the major hardware developers get their drivers fairly stable before selling it to the public.

If Microsoft was giving out WinXP64 as a free upgrade then I would be more forgiving.

I will eventually buy it when it becomes stable. Just not now.

[Doom9]

I will eventually buy it when it becomes stable.Can you prove it isn't? The whole Linux movement is based on small parts constantly being updated with others lacking behind.. that's dependency hell for you.. plus are you implying that Linux should never be released just because it lacks in the driver department? We'll always have the same situation with any OS and many other software for that matter.. I very much doubt that if you had a finished product, you'd hold it back just to give others the possibility to play catch-up. It's not how the software business works, commercial or non commercial.

[Revgen]

Can you prove it isn't?

There are issues according to this (http://www.monarchcomputer.com/forum/showthread.php?threadid=4407) pc builder.

The whole Linux movement is based on small parts constantly being updated with others lacking behind.. that's dependency hell for you.. plus are you implying that Linux should never be released just because it lacks in the driver department?

True. But Linux is free, Winxp64 is not. OS's that require me to pay IMHO should be held to higher standards.

We'll always have the same situation with any OS and many other software for that matter.. I very much doubt that if you had a finished product, you'd hold it back just to give others the possibility to play catch-up. It's not how the software business works, commercial or non commercial.

You and I obviously have different opinions. Let's just agree to disagree. :)

[Joe Fenton]

But IMHO Microsoft should wait until at least the major hardware developers get their drivers fairly stable before selling it to the public.

That's called Catch-22. Microsoft wants to wait for drivers, but the hardware manufacturers want to wait for Microsoft to release XP64 before working on the drivers.

[spuddog]

Perhaps, it is not whether you like XP64 or feel that it should have included more features and drivers, but whether you are more comfortable being on the leading or the trailing edge of technology. I prefer (for the most part) to use hardware and software that have been proven and works. Others prefer to be the ones to work the bugs out for the rest of us. I think that being critcal of developers who introduce hard or software that is not completly polished may be shortsighted.

[ShinSan]

So far XP64 hasn't been bad. My motherboard is nforce + my graphics is a Geforce, so I was able to get drivers. Unfortunately, I had to search for drivers for my video capture.

Most 32-bit applications work. Some exceptions include earlier versions of Starforce.

There is a build of Microsoft VirtualPC Beta that will let you install a 32-bit OS under a VM, and so far VirtualPC has been free. Who knows if it'll stay that way in June since it's in beta. I haven't crashed VPC yet.

I mostly got XP64 since it came with a Vista coupon. So far, it hasn't been bad. I haven't run into a game that refused to play and most applications I used in Windows 2000 work, except for Sub Station Alpha. There seems to be 2 sets of codecs running simultaneously. If your application is 64-bit, you use the 64-bit codecs. If your application is 32-bit, etc etc. Of course I only have tested that theory with the 2 vdubs.

Of course, it bites that I have to boot a 32-bit OS in VPC in order to use avisynth :p Also, it has been pretty stable.