Windows XP 64 bit version

[Morden]

Does anyone here use Windows XP 64bit edition on their computer if they are running the Duo 2 Quad CPU? I'm asking because I was checking out the Windows XP 64 bit edition on Microsoft's website and was curious if DVD Rebuilder works good on it for Quad systems?

:thanks: to all those that can help out with an/all answers!

[burfadel]

DVD rebuilder should work on it the same as it would on Windows XP (if not slightly better due to the optimisations in Windows code between XP and Server 2003 for which XP x64 is based).

[Morden]

But that all depends on whether there was any 64bit coding done in dvd rebuilder that would make it more optimized for win xp x64 right?

[blizard]

Does anyone here use Windows XP 64bit edition on their computer if they are running the Duo 2 Quad CPU? I'm asking because I was checking out the Windows XP 64 bit edition on Microsoft's website and was curious if DVD Rebuilder works good on it for Quad systems?

:thanks: to all those that can help out with an/all answers!

What are you really want to know? First there is more to your question then you might think as it all depends on both how well DVD Rebuilder support multithreading (actually SMP) to share work load between all four cores and how well memory can be administrated for 64 bit on Window (WOW). Then it is also the problem of optimization between different work step in the processing of DVD for which DVD Rebuilder are meant to deal with.

Most part of DVD Rebuilder can be found as separate software and are build to work in 32 bit mode. DVD Decrypter would be only the be found as 32 bit, AVISynth (there are some older 64 bit version ASFAIK, but then you would need to also have filter that work with this version) and that GUI which is DVD Rebuilder would not gain anything from four cores and/or 64 bit vs 32 bit as it only work to connect those application into one front end.

You can look around at all those threads here on DOOM9 about Xvid (=MPEG-4 ASP) as 64 bit version and as single vs dual core version and the fights about MPEG-4 AVC aka H.264) which is better suited for multi-core system (=SMP). Xvid work best in 32 bit version and Xvid 1.2.X which is dual core version is a little bit faster, but this is a trade off between different features in how QPEL, GMC and so is meant to work during encoding in Xvid. H.264 make use of other algorithm and features, so it is not possible to give a direct answer as it all depends on where the end user want to use for player (decoding; hardware decoder set the limits). DVD is based on MPEG2 and I have not seen much talk of optimization for MPEG2 (take a look at FFDSHOW and FFMPEG open source project to get an idea).

The only advantage I can see would be for what type of encoder and decoder (MPEG) you pick where there is advantage for faster processing, but in general there is not much difference between 64/32 bit. You could probably run two demanding DVD Rebuilder at once, but this will also depend on how your harddisk are set up to work as read and write between harddisks take time and with larger files it is rather noticeable a delay as it is the slowest part on most system.

____
FYI I use Win XP 64 bit and it works very well in my system to record TV and to cut out commercials and transcode MPEG2 to smaller size like Xvid/H.264.

[burfadel]

Windows Xp x64 is slightly faster not because of 64 bit, but because its based on Server 2003 and not XP. It actually uses the same updates as Server 2003 x64.

Server 2003 has many optimisations and improvements over XP. The cacheing system is supposedly better as well as memory management, and thats where the extra speed comes from. The other advantage is that you can up your RAM to 4gb, whereas the maximum RAM on XP is 2gb.

So for 32 bit apps it would be only slightly faster. The advantage is, if ever a 64 bit version is released you can make use of it. The best marketing con is vista32, as its also limited to 2gb of ram which suffocates some games and especially games/progs of the future. So after SP1 when the uptake of vista32 is high then dwindling, they'll swoop in and promote x64 prompting a further upgrade.

A fully updated XP x64 will gve you support for software beyond that of Vista32, strange as it may sound!

[Digga]

The other advantage is that you can up your RAM to 4gb, whereas the maximum RAM on XP is 2gb.this is not true. WinXP is able to use more than 2 GB of RAM.

A fully updated XP x64 will gve you support for software beyond that of Vista32, strange as it may sound!that sounds a little strange indeed.

[Fishman0919]

On MS website...

Windows XP Professional and Windows Server 2003 Memory Support.
The maximum amount of memory that can be supported on Windows XP Professional
and Windows Server 2003 is also 4 GB. However, Windows Server 2003,
Enterprise Edition supports 32 GB of physical RAM and Windows Server 2003,
Datacenter Edition supports 64 GB of physical RAM

[Bigmango]

this is not true. WinXP is able to use more than 2 GB of RAM.


How do you do that ?

My system is a core2duo with 4 Gb ram. I dual boot vista x64 and xp 32bit.

With vista x64 I have 4Gb ram. When I boot into XP I only have 2Gb ram...

[Digga]

How do you do that ?
My system is a core2duo with 4 Gb ram. I dual boot vista x64 and xp 32bit.
With vista x64 I have 4Gb ram. When I boot into XP I only have 2Gb ram...(edit: my first thought was that it might be a hardware or BIOS issue, but as the memory is correctly recognized by Vista x64 that is rather unlikely ;-))

what version of WinXP are you running?
(is max 4 GB of RAM support exclusive to the Pro version)?

[dynamis]

i got 3.25GB when i had 4GB (4 x 1GB) in there.

there's a command-line thing u can do to make XP x86 windows use all 4GB, but the site i got the info from said that the memory management won't be as efficient.

i ran cce + rb on XP x64 for a while and it was a little faster. it wasn't faster by much though. saved a few minutes.

i think your XP x86 showing only 2GB is strange. i thought you should be able to get at least 3GB on any setup (max is 4, but the addresses that the rest of the memory would use are already reserved for other things, like the pci slots, and i forget the others. the most memory i've seen recognized by XP x86 is 3.5). what motherboard are you using?

[burfadel]

There are setting you can add to the boot.ini file after the /fastdetech switch. I suggest you copy and past the line and edit the copied line. The boot menu should show, so change the definition of the copied line to 'More mem' or something. This just provides a safety net. Boot.ini is available in c:\ for XP, and is a system/hidden file

The switches to add are:
/3gb
(which is supposedly safe, gives up to 3gb or slighly more, still with 4gb total limit) - the rest is use for devices as someone else mentioned

/pae
(which is supposedly safe too, but isn't enabled by default for some reason... possibly not as stable?)?? This should give you all the 4gb, but may not work. Highler limits only available with 32 bit server operating systems.

On vista the system is different, the option is:
from the command prompt:
bcdedit /set pae forceenable

Still, if you have 4gb of ram it is better to use a 64 bit operating system!

The 4gb or more is an extension to 32 bit, and not native. Thats what the Pae (physical address extension) is for.

[writersblock29]

@Morden

To answer your question--and put this thread back on track--there should be no problem at all between Rebuilder and the setup you describe. Most of the time you use Rebuilder, it's merely sitting in the background waiting for the encoder to do its thing (encoding takes up the majority of your time in making a backup). HC will be more efficient, since you can run multiple instances of it on a multicore processor. CCE even makes good use of multicore, if that's the encoder you choose.

Multicore processors simply allow each core to handle a different task--as opposed to the old single cores, which had to share tasks and had to set priorities as to what program got "dibs" on most of your system's resources. Programs that are designed for dual or quad cores merely break up a given chore into several "threads"--and each "thread" gets assigned to a different core. In this way, having a quad core is more like having four seperate processors on one chip, with each processor handling a different task.

This entire explanation is over-simplified, but hopefully gives you an idea of what's happening under the hood when you fire up your system. Rebuilder, itself, is largely idle when you're using it; it's the encoders that use most of your resources.

I can verify that Rebuilder works flawlessly in Windows XP X64. Haven't had a hicup yet!