# 64-bit OS with 2GB RAM



## TripleDesi (Jan 22, 2010)

I understand that if I have 4GB+ RAM then a 32-bit OS likely will not be able to see all the RAM. Therefore, one should install a 64-bit OS. My question however is a little different.

I have 2GB RAM right now in my computer. But someday I hope to be able to go to 4GB. So my question is should I install 64-bit OS right now with the 2GB RAM I have? I'm sure it will install, but I wanted to know if my computer will run slower.

Just trying to figure out if I should wait and reinstall 64-bit OS after I upgrade to 4GB or save myself the trouble right now.

Thanks in advance.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2010)

XP x64, sure.  Vista/Windows 7, I would only do it if you're going to get the memory soon.  Vista and Windows 7 will use over a GiB of RAM by themselves which leaves little to the user.  XP x64 on the other hand uses about 400-500 MiB of RAM.  1.5 GiB of user space is a tight fit but for the most part, it will work.


----------



## A Cheese Danish (Jan 22, 2010)

I agree with FordGT. XP x64 doesn't use much off the bat and would probably be good for now until your get you memory in.
However, Vista/7 use a tad bit more than one would like. I know I have a few extra processes, but nonetheless, on my laptop 
I'm using 7 x64 and it is using 1.1GB of my 3GB of ram I have. Granted it's not all the time, and it isn't making my computer 
sluggish. Just something to take into consideration.


----------



## EviLZeD (Jan 22, 2010)

I remember my cousin had vista on his laptop with 1gb ram my pc had 4 at the time and vista used around 1.3gb of my ram but I think vista recognizes if you computer lacks memory and somehow lowers its usage because he could play few games fine on his laptop like fear and wow even with 1gb ram. 

I don't remember if it was vista x64 or x86 tho but I don think it would use up much more...


----------



## Rexter (Jan 22, 2010)

No, no, no, no! Never XP x64! If you want an OS not supported by microsoft any longer, and shit driver and hardware support, fine.

If you want to roll a 64bit OS, use windows 7, and it will work just perfectly fine with 2gb ram, heck you wouldnt feel a difference between xp, xp x64, win7 32bit and win7 64bit. 

If you know you are going to get 4gig ram soon'ish, just install windows 7 64bit now. Even if you dont have 4gb ram yet, you can still enjoy the wonders of 64bit computing, like crysis in 64bit, insane speeds in 64bit winrar, or super smooth performance in photoshop cs4 64bit etc.

Anyway, dont get scared by windows' ram usage, windows 7 uses ram just like vista does, just not as aggresive. (turbofetch and what have you).
If i had a computer with 2gb ram, heck even 1gb ram, i would STILL install a 64bit OS if possible.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 22, 2010)

Just to clarify what these guys are saying:

If you plan to upgrade the ram, definitely go x64 now. 64 bit doesn't have any real downside over 32 bit, so go x64 from the start.

However, be aware that 2GB is the minimum you want to run with vista (its decent for 7). So try and do the upgrade to 4GB ASAP

Also, XP 64 is basically unsupported and has many issues with games. Despite its lower memory footprint, you'll definitely run into hardware and software compatibility problems.


----------



## Sensi Karate (Jan 22, 2010)

I think you should just get Windows 7 x64 for future proof. You don't want an old OS that wont be supported in the coming months. Windows 7 is the now and the future and you'll just be holding yourself back and seriously waste money on a old product. 2GB of ram should be able to run on a x64 bit system. I had 2GB of ram on a Windows 7 x64 before I upgraded to 6GB of ram. It wasn't absolutely 'smooth' but it will work just fine until you get your 4GB of ram.


----------



## somebody (Jan 22, 2010)

What sort of HW do you have? If your running with something like a 945 you'll still be limited to less than 4GB of RAM.

You shouldn't notice any speed difference running 32-bit on x64 unless perhaps your running benchmarks.


----------



## Frick (Jan 22, 2010)

I have 2GB and I don't really understand why it's supposed to be minimum. I don't think I've seen RAM stutterings once.

It's still good to have more (because you can never have to much of it) though.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 22, 2010)

Gotta agree that Microsoft screwed up with its x86-64 implementation. 64-bit Windows kernels can't natively run x86 applications (like 32-bit kernels could run old 16-bit applications), and rely on the "Windows on Windows 64" (WOW64) translation layer. Useless latency in translating x86 calls to an x86-64 kernel.


----------



## Black Panther (Jan 22, 2010)

Install 7 x64 for the same reasons Sensi Karate posted above.

I have Vista x64 on my desktop, originally had 6GB DDR2 RAM. Now that I've ended up with only 2GB (gave some to brother, put some at work pc etc) I feel the difference. Not that you'd be seeing a slow computer far from it, but compared to what it was before it takes longer to load the OS and probably games would suffer too compared to before.

If (I assume?) you never had more than 2GB in your pc you wouldn't see it as slow, especially if you do get 7 and not Vista.


----------



## DaveK (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm using Windows 7 64bit with 2GB RAM and it runs fine for me.


----------



## TripleDesi (Jan 22, 2010)

*More details on my question*



Sensi Karate said:


> I think you should just get Windows 7 x64 for future proof. You don't want an old OS that wont be supported in the coming months. Windows 7 is the now and the future and you'll just be holding yourself back and seriously waste money on a old product. 2GB of ram should be able to run on a x64 bit system. I had 2GB of ram on a Windows 7 x64 before I upgraded to 6GB of ram. It wasn't absolutely 'smooth' but it will work just fine until you get your 4GB of ram.



First of all, thanks to all of you. If I had known of this forum before I would have more hair on my head today.

I didn't think to provide more details before. Rectifying that problem now.

I have an Athlon 2.01GHz sitting on a ASUS A8N SLI with 2GB RAM and a 128MB NVidia 7800 video card with a Windows 7 recommended resolution of 1650 x 1050 (or something like that) on a 20inch Flat Panel Monitor. I am running Windows 7 32-bit on it right now. I am not sure when I'll go to 4GB RAM; I want to but it could be 3-4 months till I wrangle up the money. I am already in possession of both 32-bit and 64-bit Windows 7 OS so that's not an issue.

If I understand correctly, one opinion is that 64-bit Windows 7 takes up a lot of RAM right of the bat and therefore one shouldn't install it with just 2GB RAM unless the change to 4GB+ RAM is impending. That means stick with 32-bit and re-install with 64-bit only AFTER 4GB+ RAM is available in the computer.

Another opinion which I like  is I will not experience any perceptible slowness if I install 64-bit OS right away. This I'm hoping will also be the final conclusion subject to more information I'm providing below.

I guess part of the answer depends on the rest of my hardware - details on which I provided above - and part on how I'm going to use the computer. I definitely expect to use the computer for audio/video encoding / processing. Creating home videos, encoding to different formats to play on different devices etc. However, I am no Gamer. In fact I don't even expect to install any game whatsoever on this computer.

So with this information, would those recommending I do not go 64-bit Windows 7 right now, change their opinion? As an aside, does 64-bit OS make the computer heat up more or something? Sorry if this is stupid question.

Thanks much.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Gotta agree that Microsoft screwed up with its x86-64 implementation. 64-bit Windows kernels can't natively run x86 applications (like 32-bit kernels could run old 16-bit applications), and rely on the "Windows on Windows 64" (WOW64) translation layer. Useless latency in translating x86 calls to an x86-64 kernel.



You don't want 16 bit legacy crap running in your kernel. You want a reliable and fast kernel. Removing legacy support can help a lot there, handling backward compatibility via emulation is a great solution. That way you don't get a BSOD when your crappy Win 3.11 application tries to destroy the internet and force satellites to build lasers on the moon. If you really must have full compatibility to play ms pacman, don't upgrade to the latest OS, use DOS instead. The solution is quite simple. The extra latency in your ms pacman code is worth it to get an improved overall performance and reliability.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2010)

Rexter said:


> No, no, no, no! Never XP x64! If you want an OS not supported by microsoft any longer, and shit driver and hardware support, fine.


XP x64 is on the same update cycle as Server 2003.  They both still get updates rather frquently (was one today).




Rexter said:


> If you want to roll a 64bit OS, use windows 7, and it will work just perfectly fine with 2gb ram, heck you wouldnt feel a difference between xp, xp x64, win7 32bit and win7 64bit.


If you got the RAM, XP x64 is the fastest of those four in most tasks.




Mussels said:


> Also, XP 64 is basically unsupported and has many issues with games. Despite its lower memory footprint, you'll definitely run into hardware and software compatibility problems.


There's only three reasons why a game won't work on XP x64:

1) The game installs drivers (namely, Star-Force) which are not 64-bit compatible so it errors.  It doesn't matter it is XP x64, Vista 64-bit, or 7 64-bit, install wll fail on all.  Examples: Beyond Good & Evil, XIII, and Splinter Cell: Chaos Theory.  This is infrequent and unheard of for new/recent titles.

2) The game only has a Direct3D 10 render path.  XP x64 does not have D3D 10 support so they obviously will fail to run. Examples: Stormrise and Dirt 2.  Not many major titles fit here but a trend may be starting.

3) Blacklists where, for whatever reason, the developer forbids the application to be installed on any OS except a select few.  Examples: Shadowrun and Halo 2.  Very rare.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 22, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> You don't want 16 bit legacy crap running in your kernel. You want a reliable and fast kernel. Removing legacy support can help a lot there, handling backward compatibility via emulation is a great solution.



32-bit applications are far from being legacy crap. So the argument is that x86-64 Windows kernels should have supported 32-bit applications natively, just like 32-bit kernels could handle 16-bit ones. I'm not saying that today's kernels should be able to run 16-bit.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 22, 2010)

btarunr said:


> 32-bit applications are far from being legacy crap. So the argument is that x86-64 Windows kernels should have supported 32-bit applications natively, just like 32-bit kernels could handle 16-bit ones. I'm not saying that today's kernels should be able to run 16-bit.



Why exactly? I have no problems running 32 bit software.


----------



## btarunr (Jan 22, 2010)

DanTheBanjoman said:


> Why exactly? I have no problems running 32 bit software.



Of course you don't. But WOW64 uses resources, and should add latency in being what it is - a translation layer.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 22, 2010)

4GB (2GB x 2) is the safest bet for Win x64 OS's.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2010)

x64:
system = 16-bit
sysWOW64 = 32-bit
system32 = 64-bit

x86:
system = 16-bit
system32 = 32-bit


64-bit shoves double the bits through all the pipes meaning bigger DLLs to load, more memory to reserve for addresses, etc.  This so called "latency" is the tiny decrease in performance caused by allowing access to more data and larger values.  This difference is almost always less than 1% in benchmarks and is completely negligible.


----------



## frankie827 (Jan 22, 2010)

If you want to future proof, I would go with 7 x64.  I went with the x86 version of Vista Home Premium when I got it 2 years ago, and I regret it completely.  Now that I have 4gb of ram, I need Windows to utilize all of it, which it won't do in x86.  I honestly wish Microsoft had only produced 7 in x64. -.-


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2010)

Go with x64 now, you've already got the copy so just use it.

Despite what some say, it does not take up a huge amount of memory off the bat.  A fresh install of Win7 x64 w/ AVG Anti-virus and Aero enabled only uses about 650MB of RAM. Thats without any tweaks to lower memory usage, just a plain install of Win7 Pro. 

I don't know where people are getting that it will use over 1GB of RAM right off the bat, it won't.  Maybe some of the copies from OEMs like Dell and HP will use 1GB+, but those are bloated right from the beginning with crapware.

To give you an idea, the machine I'm typing this on right now is a Pentium D w/ 2GB of RAM, and Win7 x64 runs extremely smooth on it.


----------



## psyko12 (Jan 22, 2010)

Running W7 x64 on a dated machine with 2 gb, doing fine and does what I want it to do.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I don't know where people are getting that it will use over 1GB of RAM right off the bat, it won't.  Maybe some of the copies from OEMs like Dell and HP will use 1GB+, but those are bloated right from the beginning with crapware.


My install is one week old today.  Basically I only have drivers and a few games installed.  Right now, it is sitting around 1.2 GiB.  There's 38 processes running.  This is a clean install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.


----------



## TripleDesi (Jan 22, 2010)

*We may have a winner*



newtekie1 said:


> Go with x64 now, you've already got the copy so just use it.
> 
> Despite what some say, it does not take up a huge amount of memory off the bat.  A fresh install of Win7 x64 w/ AVG Anti-virus and Aero enabled only uses about 650MB of RAM. Thats without any tweaks to lower memory usage, just a plain install of Win7 Pro.
> 
> ...



I'm going to take your advice since there does not seem to be a clear conclusion to draw. It will always depend on hardware / usage to a large extent I guess.

FWIW, Microsoft Security Essentials Antivirus (MSEA) runs better than AVG which I recently dropped after 4 years of Happiness on both Windows Vista and Windows 7. On the computer in question I have MSEA and works good.

The only way I'm going to really "know" is to go 64-bit now. I posed the question here because I didn't want to setup EVERYTHING on 32-bit, only to have to do it again with 64-bit.

One final thing I will note - and will need to take care off - is the onboard sound card driver. This was the only trouble I had with my Windows 7 install. After hunting on the net, I finally managed the courage to take the suggestion of trying Windows XP driver on Windows 7. It does work. Now after I put 64-bit Windows 7 on the machine, I will have to go find the 64-bit XP driver for the sound card. If that does not work, then I'll have to go back to 32-bit for all the wrong reasons. Surely cannot live with sound not working.

Thank you, one and all.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> My install is one week old today.  Basically I only have drivers and a few games installed.  Right now, it is sitting around 1.2 GiB.  There's 38 processes running.  This is a clean install of Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit.










I haven't even had a chance to tweak it yet, hell I haven't even turned off the Indexer yet, as you can see from the picture.

I'm never amazed at how quickly people can bloat up their machine though, a week is plenty of time to install a few memory hogs, especially if you have a bunch of programs that you like that you install right away with a fresh install, there are a lot of them out there that are useful but take up a lot of memory in the background.  Though with only 38 processes....I've got 48 running and are using less memory than you claim to be...

Edit: 

A quick trip down Black Viper's services tweak list and I'm under 590MB with 47 Processes:


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 22, 2010)

You got 2 GiB of RAM, I have 6.  Mine is caching (or reserved memory for caching) twice as much as yours.  Windows XP x64 only took about 100-150 MiB of RAM but 200-300 MiB on top of that was for caching.


When people say extra RAM makes their computer "feel" faster is because of caching.  When you don't have enough RAM, less is cached leading to a decreased response time.  XP x64 (which caches at least twice as much as XP, assuming XP caches at all) is commonly described as being more responsive.  It has nothing to do with x64 and everything to do with Windows 5.2 compared to 5.1.


I restarted and it was 800 some MiB RAM used which since climbed to ~1 GiB.  BOINC auto-starts so a lot of that 800 MiB could be the BOINC projects being cached.


The point remains: Windows XP x64 requires less RAM to get optimal performance than Windows 7 and Windows Vista.


----------



## erocker (Jan 22, 2010)

I'm currently using Windows 7 x64 w/ 2gb's DDR 400 and an old single core athlon. It works absolutely fine. Smooth one might say. 

That being said if you want to be doing video encoding or other intensive tasks, your current machine will be slow (but functional) no matter what O/S you are using.

Here's a screenshot. (funny I don't remember turning cool and quiet on. I never thought it worked with this board! Awesome!)


----------



## suraswami (Jan 22, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Go with x64 now, you've already got the copy so just use it.
> 
> Despite what some say, it does not take up a huge amount of memory off the bat.  A fresh install of Win7 x64 w/ AVG Anti-virus and Aero enabled only uses about 650MB of RAM. Thats without any tweaks to lower memory usage, just a plain install of Win7 Pro.
> 
> ...



I totally agree with newtekie1 here.  I am running AII X2 240 @3.5Ghz with just 2GB Ram and W7 64bit Professional.  I do game on this with my new 4670 @ 1920 x 1080 medium settings (MOH Airborne) and the ram usage never went over 1.7GB.  Alt+tab works just fine, I can run the game in the background and still open up other apps with no lag.




TripleDesi said:


> I'm going to take your advice since there does not seem to be a clear conclusion to draw. It will always depend on hardware / usage to a large extent I guess.
> 
> FWIW, Microsoft Security Essentials Antivirus (MSEA) runs better than AVG which I recently dropped after 4 years of Happiness on both Windows Vista and Windows 7. On the computer in question I have MSEA and works good.
> 
> ...



Make sure you go with atleast Win 7 64bit Professional so you can make use of running any old hardware drivers in XP mode.  The sound drivers should install fine in XP compatibility mode and will work fine.  If you go with Home premium or something you are on your own 

Or you can get a cheap $15 via chipset sound card, via have drivers for 7 32 and 64bit.  Usually Realtek onboard should be taken care of 7 without any drivers need to be installed.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 22, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> You got 2 GiB of RAM, I have 6.  Mine is caching (or reserved memory for caching) twice as much as yours.  Windows XP x64 only took about 100-150 MiB of RAM but 200-300 MiB on top of that was for caching.
> 
> 
> When people say extra RAM makes their computer "feel" faster is because of caching.  When you don't have enough RAM, less is cached leading to a decreased response time.  XP x64 (which caches at least twice as much as XP, assuming XP caches at all) is commonly described as being more responsive.  It has nothing to do with x64 and everything to do with Windows 5.2 compared to 5.1.
> ...



A fully updated XP x64, fresh with just AVG again, uses IIRC ~500MB without caching.  You can actually see how much is actually being used by caching in my screenshots, almost 1GB.  But RAM used for caching is hardly used RAM, since whatever is in it, can just be dumped instantly if the RAM is needed vs. swapping out to the HD with traditional RAM usage.

I would agree that XP x64 requires less RAM if we were talking a few years ago, but all the bloated updates have made it barely usable on 512MB of RAM, and just about as usable on 1GB as Win7 is.  In fact, Win7 is actually pretty functional on 512MB, sluggish as XP but functional.


----------



## TripleDesi (Jan 23, 2010)

*Windows 7 64-bit installed*

I'm glad I installed Windows 7 64-bit. First of all it would seem MS is giving you subtle hints and pushing you to 64-bit. When I went to Windows Update to install all updates not only did it not find more updates in one shot, it rebooted only once. And the onboard audio driver I had to go and manually install - it was found on Windows Update unlike when I installed 32-bit.

The attached screenshot shows I have no complaints. I didn't tweak anything at all. The only thing. I installed besides OS and all updates is Microsoft Security Essentials.

I will now work toward figuring out what RAM to buy.

Thanks all.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I would agree that XP x64 requires less RAM if we were talking a few years ago, but all the bloated updates have made it barely usable on 512MB of RAM, and just about as usable on 1GB as Win7 is.  In fact, Win7 is actually pretty functional on 512MB, sluggish as XP but functional.


Not true.  When I first installed it in 2005 through today, it only uses about 450 MiB. XP x64 runs fine on 512 MiB as well because the true memory footprint is only 150-200 MiB (not much larger than XP).


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Not true.  When I first installed it in 2005 through today, it only uses about 450 MiB. XP x64 runs fine on 512 MiB as well because the true memory footprint is only 150-200 MiB (not much larger than XP).



Regular XP now uses almost 512MB alone, well it is closer to about 350MB, without caching, it is no where near 150-200MB even with tweaking.  The x64 edition is no different, in fact it is slightly worse, as you point out.


----------



## theonedub (Jan 23, 2010)

My 965 runs Win7x64 with 2gb of ram just fine.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

I don't have an XP x64 install anymore.  Here's the next best thing:

Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition w/ 8 GiB using *925 MiB* (211 hotfixes):




DNS (uses almost 100 MiB by itself), Active Directory, IIS, file sharing, DDNSUS, and other services are running.

Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit w/ 6 GiB using *930 MiB* (10 hotfixes):






And for reference:

Windows XP Professional w/ 3 GiB using *380 MiB* (177 hotfixes):




World Community Grid is running.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> XP x64 is on the same update cycle as Server 2003.  They both still get updates rather frquently (was one today).
> 
> 
> 
> ...




you just listed 7 games that wont run, off the top of your head. You kinda made my point for me


----------



## CounterZeus (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> http://img.photobucket.com/albums/v296/newtekie1/Win7memoryusage1.png
> 
> I haven't even had a chance to tweak it yet, hell I haven't even turned off the Indexer yet, as you can see from the picture.
> 
> ...



off topic:
hey, unfair, how come your cpu is listed with the right frequency? My pentium D is running @3.2GHz and shows up as 1.5GHz...

on topic:
a friend of mine, his old gaming laptop with 2 GiB RAM is running win7 64-bit with no problems, just a few driver issues with older games, but that has nothing to do with the RAM ^-^


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> Just to clarify what these guys are saying:
> 
> If you plan to upgrade the ram, definitely go x64 now. 64 bit doesn't have any real downside over 32 bit, so go x64 from the start.
> 
> ...



agreed if you tweak vista and 7 both will get incrdably low ram usage. i think im down to like 700m idle on one of my machines. win 7 is a little more forgiving ith ram than vista. windows XP x64 was probably my bigest WTF heartache. iv never seen so much support failure in my life. that OS just did not want to work on several different occasions.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

Mussels said:


> you just listed 7 games that wont run, off the top of your head. You kinda made my point for me


Three of them wouldn't work on *any 64-bit operating system*, two were the result of a one-time Microsoft experiment three years ago, and the remain two aren't anything to write home about (except to complain about Stormrise's ridiculously stupid control system).


----------



## shevanel (Jan 23, 2010)

i tried xp 64.. terrible driver support.


----------



## TripleDesi (Jan 23, 2010)

Solaris17 said:


> agreed if you tweak vista and 7 both will get incrdably low ram usage. i think im down to like 700m idle on one of my machines. win 7 is a little more forgiving ith ram than vista. windows XP x64 was probably my bigest WTF heartache. iv never seen so much support failure in my life. that OS just did not want to work on several different occasions.



Any insights into tweaking Windows 7 on startup? I'm hoping some free tool out there that guides n00bs like me and prevents us from messing up the install by mucking around the registry.


----------



## Solaris17 (Jan 23, 2010)

TripleDesi said:


> Any insights into tweaking Windows 7 on startup? I'm hoping some free tool out there that guides n00bs like me and prevents us from messing up the install by mucking around the registry.



welll you can manipulate whats starts with windows if thats what your asking. um i can find the guide. one of the most important things to remember though. Is that the startup/services entries need to be maintained regularly. because software you install adds to these lists. and eventually slowely degrade performance. things like itunes java adobe all of which will start with the PC automatically in the background. Iv come to find that services and startup items such as these are installed with most of todays software and disabling them has no adverse affect on the program itself and helps with system performance. things such as adobe's reader etc will work perfect when manually opeing a PDF or a similar adobe file the program will auto start. the same goes for programs such as open office which installs a "quick start" allowing tings like OO wrighter etc to open aster when clicked on. However disabling these services dont break the programs themselves. (for example if you disable openoffices quick start the program and files work fine just start a little slower). i will find the guide for the tweaks. but just remember alot of the stuff comes from you and not windows.


----------



## Deleted member 3 (Jan 23, 2010)

btarunr said:


> Of course you don't. But WOW64 uses resources, and should add latency in being what it is - a translation layer.



So? Modern PC's have plenty of resources, I consider using them to aid reliability a good thing.


----------



## Rexter (Jan 23, 2010)

Have all of you collectivly forgotten how vista and win7 uses ram? oh wow so it uses 900mb during idle. Its chaching! As soon as you open a program that need the ram it free's it!

Its called superfetch or something, i forgot its proper name but its something like that. You cant compare AT ALL the memory usage of win7 and winXP.


Anyway, ive had many kinds of OS' with my current setup you can see to the left <--- and win7 64bit is definetly the one im most satisfied with. And you just dont get the benefit of using more than 4gb ram, because with a 64bit OS, the kernel, the drivers, everything in the core of the system runs at 64bit, which is theoretically faster than the 32bit kernel. It just feels faster in every way.

And in regard to tweaking the boot process, YOU DONT NEED IT! For the love of god dont use any third party programs! Just defrag your harddrive, make sure there's not any stupid programs that opens up at startup. thats it.


----------



## TripleDesi (Jan 23, 2010)

*Tweaking Windows 7*



Solaris17 said:


> i will find the guide for the tweaks. but just remember alot of the stuff comes from you and not windows.



I hear you. As I've said I'm learning everyday. For instance, I just switched from wireless mouse and keyboard to my KVM switch which uses old style PS2 keyboard and mouse. Needless to say it has nothing to do with KVM switch, but rather, the wireless mouse and keyboard and / or the fact that the adapter used USB for the keyboard. Some driver does not seem to be loading because I just reclaimed 200MB from startup memory. I did this 3 times, switching back and forth so I'm certain.

This only makes what you said more sense. One can start with some guidelines but ultimately you have to be fickle enough to figure out what works best for you. One day at a time.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I don't have an XP x64 install anymore.  Here's the next best thing:
> 
> Windows Server 2003 R2 Standard x64 Edition w/ 8 GiB using *925 MiB* (211 hotfixes):
> http://img.techpowerup.org/100123/server.jpg
> ...



How did you manage to get Win7 to use 930MB with Aero off?  I don't see much that stands out on your task list, a real head scratcher, of course there are a bunch of services that all run under the same svchost names that might be part of the problem, so I guess if you have some other features enabled that aren't enabled by default it would make sense.  Maybe it is just Ultimate with its few extra features that make it naturally use more memory than Professional edition.  Of course there is always the fact that Win7 is more efficient with using the page file, and with only 2GB it tends to use it more than systems with 4+GB, making the amount of used memory seem lower on systems with less memory.

Oh well, it is really odd.  I will conceed that XP(and XP x64) do have a slightly smaller memory footprint, but the differenece(about 200-300MB) is marginal on a system with more than 1GB of RAM, and really not worth giving up the features, compatibility, and security that comes with Win7 over XP.



Mussels said:


> you just listed 7 games that wont run, off the top of your head. You kinda made my point for me





FordGT90Concept said:


> Three of them wouldn't work on *any 64-bit operating system*, two were the result of a one-time Microsoft experiment three years ago, and the remain two aren't anything to write home about (except to complain about Stormrise's ridiculously stupid control system).



To be fair, the starforce games will work after you go to starforce's site and download the 64-bit drivers, except the really old games that still use version 3.05 of earlier, but starforce left that up to the game developer to update the copy protection via a patch to the never version for free.  Of course that assumes the developer is still in business.



CounterZeus said:


> off topic:
> hey, unfair, how come your cpu is listed with the right frequency? My pentium D is running @3.2GHz and shows up as 1.5GHz...
> 
> on topic:
> a friend of mine, his old gaming laptop with 2 GiB RAM is running win7 64-bit with no problems, just a few driver issues with older games, but that has nothing to do with the RAM ^-^



I turn off Speedstep/C1E in the BIOS and all the power saving features in the OS.



Rexter said:


> Have all of you collectivly forgotten how vista and win7 uses ram? oh wow so it uses 900mb during idle. Its chaching! As soon as you open a program that need the ram it free's it!
> 
> Its called superfetch or something, i forgot its proper name but its something like that. You cant compare AT ALL the memory usage of win7 and winXP.
> 
> ...



We went over how Win7 and Vista use RAM, you can see in my screenshots the caching part, I'm not including that in my numbers, just the actual used RAM.

And if you want to tweak your startup, I usually use Black Viper's services guide found here: http://www.blackviper.com/Windows_7/servicecfg.htm

I generally just go down the "safe" column, and anything marked with an * I change to what he says to change it to.  Doesn't take long at all to do.

It isn't "needed" but it helps, as I showed earlier in the thread, shaving about 100MB off my memory usage with not real side effect to the average user.  And for the ~5 Min it takes to do it, it is worth it IMO.


----------



## jjFarking (Jan 23, 2010)

Look mate. In short, it comes down to just getting the go-ahead on x64.
Install it & enjoy it. Get more RAM when you can afford to and see how you go performance/speed wise.
If, somewhere down the track, you find it's not as responsive as you'd like it to be, _then_ you can look at maybe optimising services et cetera.

Go 64


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> To be fair, the starforce games will work after you go to starforce's site and download the 64-bit drivers, except the really old games that still use version 3.05 of earlier, but starforce left that up to the game developer to update the copy protection via a patch to the never version for free.  Of course that assumes the developer is still in business.


The installer will halt/error/fail/CTD when it attempts to install a 32-bit driver on a 64-bit machine.  I suppose you could install it via Windows XP Mode, copy the files over to Windows 7, install the 64-bit Star-Force driver, and it should theoretically work.  Either way, it is still a pain.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The installer will halt/error/fail/CTD when it attempts to install a 32-bit driver on a 64-bit machine.  I suppose you could install it via Windows XP Mode, copy the files over to Windows 7, install the 64-bit Star-Force driver, and it should theoretically work.  Either way, it is still a pain.



Every starforce game I've installed won't halt, it will actually install the driver, but you have to disable driver signing first I believe.  Of course if you reboot after installing the 32-bit driver, Windows won't start again in normal mode until you go in and remove the 32-bit driver.(Starforce even warns about this on their website.)


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> How did you manage to get Win7 to use 930MB with Aero off?  I don't see much that stands out on your task list, a real head scratcher, of course there are a bunch of services that all run under the same svchost names that might be part of the problem, so I guess if you have some other features enabled that aren't enabled by default it would make sense.  Maybe it is just Ultimate with its few extra features that make it naturally use more memory than Professional edition.  Of course there is always the fact that Win7 is more efficient with using the page file, and with only 2GB it tends to use it more than systems with 4+GB, making the amount of used memory seem lower on systems with less memory.


There are a lot of running services.  I have not modified the list:
http://img.techpowerup.org/100123/services.png




newtekie1 said:


> ...really not worth giving up the features, compatibility, and security that comes with Win7 over XP.


That's debatable.  In short: I've had no security problems on XP x64.  Vista/7 have no new features I care for.  Vista/7 64-bit suffer the same backwards compatibility issues XP x64 does. 




newtekie1 said:


> Every starforce game I've installed won't halt, it will actually install the driver, but you have to disable driver signing first I believe.  Of course if you reboot after installing the 32-bit driver, Windows won't start again in normal mode until you go in and remove the 32-bit driver.(Starforce even warns about this on their website.)


Beyond Good & Evil just closed without message or warning once it gets to the Star-Force part on an x64 OS.  In XP Mode, it installs fine but fails to run because of no Direct3D support.  On an 32-bit XP machine, it installs and plays just fine.  I think it works on 32-bit Vista and 7 as well.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That's debatable.  In short: I've had no security problems on XP x64.  Vista/7 have no new features I care for.  Vista/7 64-bit suffer the same backwards compatibility issues XP x64 does.
> 
> Beyond Good & Evil just closed without message or warning once it gets to the Star-Force part on an x64 OS.  In XP Mode, it installs fine but fails to run because of no Direct3D support.  On an 32-bit XP machine, it installs and plays just fine.  I think it works on 32-bit Vista and 7 as well.



Debatable yes, but your preferences don't negate the truth of the points.  And there is more than just backwards compatibility issue with software, there is poor hardware compatibility, and there are some programs that still identify XP x64 as a server OS, and hence won't install.  I had this issue with some Adobe products(I think it was Photoshop 7 or maybe CS, possibly the entire CS suite), and some of the free anti-virus programs do the same.

I haven't tried Beyond Good & Evil, but I will.  Like I said, a lot of the time you have to disable driver signing before installing the game.


----------



## jjFarking (Jan 23, 2010)

Guys.. with all due respect, the OP has already stated that Windows 7 64-bit will be used and that he's unlikely to install any games at all..
Fascinating as your respective points may be, they don't actually pertain to much in what the OP needs


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Debatable yes, but your preferences don't negate the truth of the points.  And there is more than just backwards compatibility issue with software, there is poor hardware compatibility, and there are some programs that still identify XP x64 as a server OS, and hence won't install.  I had this issue with some Adobe products(I think it was Photoshop 7 or maybe CS, possibly the entire CS suite), and some of the free anti-virus programs do the same.
> 
> I haven't tried Beyond Good & Evil, but I will.


A feature is not a feature unless it is useful to the user.  It's bloat if it isn't.

You shouldn't be thinking about installing an OS without first making sure all hardware is supported.  All x64 systems I built did so hardware compatibility is moot.

Some applications may see Windows 7 as Server 2008 (both are 6.1).  That's not a fault of the OS, just poor programing (Adobe is infamous for that).




jjFarking said:


> Guys.. with all due respect, the OP has already stated that Windows 7 64-bit will be used and that he's unlikely to install any games at all..
> Fascinating as your respective points may be, they don't actually pertain to much in what the OP needs


I didn't see his post but my original point still stands: I would not recommend installing Windows 6.0 or newer (Vista, Server 2008, 7) on a system with 2 GiB or less RAM.  3 is fine because that leaves 1 GiB for the OS and 2 GiB for user space.  Only large address aware applications (32-bit) can address more than that.


----------



## CounterZeus (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I turn off Speedstep/C1E in the BIOS and all the power saving features in the OS.



didn't work for me, must be something weird. thnx anyway ^-^


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> A feature is not a feature unless it is useful to the user.  It's bloat if it isn't.
> 
> You shouldn't be thinking about installing an OS without first making sure all hardware is supported.  All x64 systems I built did so hardware compatibility is moot.
> 
> ...



There are plenty of useful featurs that come with Vista and Win7, just because you don't believe so that doesn't make it true.

Correct, the first thing I generally do before installing an OS is check to make sure all hardware is compatible, and you know what I find?  Almost every build I think about there is at least one thing that doesn't have XP x64 drivers...

I have yet to find an application that sees Win7 as Server 2008, there is a major difference between the releastionship between Win7 and Server 2008 and XP x64 and Server 2003.  Server 2003 came out before XP x64(by 2 years).  XP x64 was actually a stripped down version of Server 2003, rush to market to fill the needs of desktop x64 users(rather keep the "enthusiasts"* at time happy).  On the other hand Server 2008 was a beefed up version of Win7, released at the same time.  So XP x64 was based off Server 2003, while the reverse is true with Win7, Server 2008 is based off Win7.  This is where the issue arises.  There are several checks that software can do to determine what type of OS it is being installed on.  And some of those checks still report a server OS on XP x64, they don't on Win7.

Obviously I, and others including the OP, have shown your point isn't really valid, as we all have shown and told you that Win7 runs great on 2GB of RAM.  Win7 only uses 500MB of RAM, leaving 1.5GB for other applications, that is plenty even for most gaming.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 23, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> I have yet to find an application that sees Win7 as Server 2008, there is a major difference between the releastionship between Win7 and Server 2008 and XP x64 and Server 2003.  Server 2003 came out before XP x64(by 2 years).  XP x64 was actually a stripped down version of Server 2003, rush to market to fill the needs of desktop x64 users(rather keep the "enthusiasts"* at time happy).  On the other hand Server 2008 was a beefed up version of Win7, released at the same time.  So XP x64 was based off Server 2003, while the reverse is true with Win7, Server 2008 is based off Win7.  This is where the issue arises.  There are several checks that software can do to determine what type of OS it is being installed on.  And some of those checks still report a server OS on XP x64, they don't on Win7.


The underlined portion is incorrect but I'll get to that later...

Server 2003 was released in April 2003.  64-bit support didn't come until December 2005 with Server 2003 R2.  Server 2003 R2 SP2 current version is *5.2.3790.3959*.  XP x64 was released in April 2005 with a current version (SP2) of *5.2.3790.3959*.  They are, as far as everything is concerned, the same operating system.  The only real difference is x64 doesn't have Active Directory while Server 2003 does.  The 7 month difference in release dates were probably mostly converting Active Directory to use EM64T as well as additional debugging.

In terms of release dates: Server 2003 (32-bit only) -> XP x64 Edition (64-bit only) -> Server 2003 R2 (32-bit and 64-bit).


On the flipside, Server 2008 was released February 2008 with Server 2008 R2 in October 2009.  R2 is version *6.1.7600.16385*.  Windows 7 was released on the same date as Server 2008 R2 with the same version number: *6.1.7600.16385*.  

In terms of release dates: Server 2008 (32-bit and 64-bit) -> Windows 7 (32-bit and 64-bit) AND Server 2008 R2 (only available in 64-bit)

See the problem?  A programmer has to get creative to distinguish the two.  The version numbers are identical.  Windows 7 is a striped down (no Active Directory) version of Server 2008 with some GUI tweaks while XP x64 is a stripped down Server 2003 overhauled to support 64-bit which was desperately needed in that segment of the market.  The parrallels are uncanny.




newtekie1 said:


> Obviously I, and others including the OP, have shown your point isn't really valid, as we all have shown and told you that Win7 runs great on 2GB of RAM.  Win7 only uses 500MB of RAM, leaving 1.5GB for other applications, that is plenty even for most gaming.


When it could/should be using around 1 GiB.  The limited amount of RAM available forces Windows to pull back on caching.  If it is temporary (a month or two), go for it.  If it is long term, I wouldn't recommend it.



Server 2008 R2 being 64-bit only might indicate that the next major version of Windows (the *real* Windows 7.0) will only be offered in 64-bit.  The next generation operating system is naturally based on the most recent Server edition with Active Directory disabled (and some other server-only goodies).


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 23, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> The underlined portion is incorrect but I'll get to that later...
> 
> Server 2003 was released in April 2003.  64-bit support didn't come until December 2005 with Server 2003 R2.  Server 2003 R2 SP2 current version is *5.2.3790.3959*.  XP x64 was released in April 2005 with a current version (SP2) of *5.2.3790.3959*.  They are, as far as everything is concerned, the same operating system.  The only real difference is x64 doesn't have Active Directory while Server 2003 does.  The 7 month difference in release dates were probably mostly converting Active Directory to use EM64T as well as additional debugging.
> 
> ...





If you'd like to look at the developement tree yourself, you are more than welcome:






Again, XP x64 is based off Server 2003, while the reverse it true with Win7 and Server 2008.  XP x64 is a stripped down Server 2003, Server 2008 is Win7 with some added features.  Normally this would sound like symantics, but in this case it isn't, it is describing how the 4 were developed.

Now, you seem to still be stuck on believing that applications rely soly on OS version numbers to determine what OS, or more importantly what type of OS, they are being installed on.  This isn't the case, applications use several methods to determine what type of OS they are being installed on.

You aren't the one to be saying how much RAM the OS could/should be using. More to the point, this doesn't matter.  What matters is the OS performance, and it performs perfectly on 2GB of RAM.  It doesn't affect caching, obviously, since it is pretty clear that almost 1GB of space is used for caching in my screenshots.  Yes, it could be using more, it uses about twice as much for caching in my 8GB rig, but 1GB is still plenty.  Right now you are trying to argue based on background happenings that in reality have little effect on actual performance of the OS.  Yes, it does affect the OS performance, but not very noticeable, and thanks to the improvements in Win7, it still feels faster on 2GB than XP does.

Oh, and I figured out why Beyond Good & Evil doesn't work.  It is because the game doesn't use Starforce...

Though I'm pretty much done arguing with you, the OP has already went with x64, and it worked out fine for him...imagine that...so why keep arguing trying to say it will or won't?


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 24, 2010)

I used to run my download box with Vista 64, with 2 gb of DDR2 667, and while it is do-able and it will work, it's just not the best idea, you will be able to do all the basic tasks, internet e-mail, word processing and even some light game, it's just not going to be "smooth" there will be times when it chugs, and hangs, and lags. Especially with Vista, this will be true in both 32 and 64 bit versions. Though between Vista and Windows 7, Windows 7 seems to handle the lack of memory a lot better. Mostly because it's just less bulky and over all a better OS. If you have any plans of increasing your memory amount, go with Windows 7 64 bit, there really is no reasson to go 32 bit anymore, as there are little to no compatibilty issues, and a lot of apps and games are begining to support 64 bit nativly.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> https://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/thumb/0/0e/Windows_Family_Tree.svg/1000px-Windows_Family_Tree.svg.png


That was made by a user named NOKIA 3120 classic.  It is not official.  Server 2008 came before Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 launched on the same day as Windows 7.  Server 2008 (February 2008) can't be based on something that didn't exist (October 2009) at the time of its release.




newtekie1 said:


> Now, you seem to still be stuck on believing that applications rely soly on OS version numbers to determine what OS, or more importantly what type of OS, they are being installed on.  This isn't the case, applications use several methods to determine what type of OS they are being installed on.


Depends how the application is coded.  If they dig farther than version number, they can sort out what product type Windows is; however, if they only look at version numbers, there will be false positives.




newtekie1 said:


> Oh, and I figured out why Beyond Good & Evil doesn't work.  It is because the game doesn't use Starforce...


Oops, Tages.  Tages is just as heavily integrated as Star-Force though.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 24, 2010)

Vista does a bad job with ddr memory. Windows 7 fixes that problem and much more.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> That was made by a user named NOKIA 3120 classic.  It is not official.  Server 2008 came before Windows 7 and Server 2008 R2 launched on the same day as Windows 7.  Server 2008 (February 2008) can't be based on something that didn't exist (October 2009) at the time of its release.



Ok, bad wording on my part, when I say Sever 2008, I mean Server 2008 R2.  Server 2008 was based on Vista, and Server 2008 R2 was based on Win7.  Sorry for the confusion, replace Server 2008 with Server 2008 in all my posts.





FordGT90Concept said:


> Depends how the application is coded.  If they dig farther than version number, they can sort out what product type Windows is; however, if they only look at version numbers, there will be false positives.



Correct, if they look at version numbers alone, there will be false positives.  However, even going beyond that, alot of the checks that go further return false positives on XP x64, but not on Win7 because they did a better job of differentiating Win7 from a server OS than they did with XP x64.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Oops, Tages.  Tages is just as heavily integrated as Star-Force though.



Correct, but not applicable to the original comment about starforce that I made, that you tried to counter.  And while Tages offers an x64 driver also, it seems older games don't tend to like using it.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Ok, bad wording on my part, when I say Sever 2008, I mean Server 2008 R2.  Server 2008 was based on Vista, and Server 2008 R2 was based on Win7.  Sorry for the confusion, replace Server 2008 with Server 2008 in all my posts.


They are both based on Server 2008 (version 6.1).  R2 coming from Windows 7 or Windows 7 coming from R2 is like arguing did a blue Taurus come before a red Taurus: they are the same thing--just Windows 7 has a lot disabled and comes in a 32-bit flavor.




newtekie1 said:


> Correct, if they look at version numbers alone, there will be false positives.  However, even going beyond that, alot of the checks that go further return false positives on XP x64, but not on Win7 because they did a better job of differentiating Win7 from a server OS than they did with XP x64.


Nope.  Microsoft didn't change anything in that regard but developers are more knowledgable about the issue so they code for it.

It is not as cut and dried as you think it is.  In fact, I can't find any sure fire way to tell if the OS is a server edition or not.  The only way I know of is to check the OS string for "Server."  That isn't very reliable though.




newtekie1 said:


> Correct, but not applicable to the original comment about starforce that I made, that you tried to counter.  And while Tages offers an x64 driver also, it seems older games don't tend to like using it.


Which still means that the game won't run on any x64 OS.


----------



## Super XP (Jan 24, 2010)

Will be ever see PURE 64-Bit games? Games writen so they may better use up 4GB+ of system memory.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Yes, once consoles have 4+ GiB RAM or console ports (for whatever reason) require more than 4 GiB on Windows.  They will have to be compiled as 64-bit binaries because they can't run in 32-bit user space.


----------



## [H]@RD5TUFF (Jan 24, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Will be ever see PURE 64-Bit games? Games writen so they may better use up 4GB+ of system memory.



Pure 64 bit proboably not for another year or 2. Due to the fact there are still some people that insist on running a 32 bit OS, people that think a 32 bit OS is a good idea need to suck it up and go 64 bit.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They are both based on Server 2008 (version 6.1).  R2 coming from Windows 7 or Windows 7 coming from R2 is like arguing did a blue Taurus come before a red Taurus: they are the same thing--just Windows 7 has a lot disabled and comes in a 32-bit flavor.



As I already said, while it seems like symantics, it this contect it actually makes a difference.  Server 2008 R2 being engineered off the Win7 core, instead of the reverse like the case with XP x64 and Server 2003, makes a difference.



FordGT90Concept said:


> Nope.  Microsoft didn't change anything in that regard but developers are more knowledgable about the issue so they code for it.
> 
> It is not as cut and dried as you think it is.  In fact, I can't find any sure fire way to tell if the OS is a server edition or not.  The only way I know of is to check the OS string for "Server."  That isn't very reliable though.



Microsoft actually changed a lot, again they didn't have as much time with XP x64, it was rushed to the market to fill an idiot demand for a 64-bit Desktop OS.

Just to name a couple ways to go beyond version number:

Check OS Name String and match it up with a list of supported OSes: The problem with this is if new OSes come out, then what?  But that is the same problem that applications that go by version number face, except more so with version number because it can change even on the same OS, a service pack can change the version number.

Check OS Configuration String: This string specifically identifies what type of OS is on the machine, and actually how that OS is configured, and is why programs like AVG free won't install on Server 2008 R2 but will install on Win7.  This is a much better way than going by version number or OS string, as it will not change, so you don't have to worry about a new OS coming out and not being on the support list.  It was also a big sticking point with XP x64 that led to most of the problems, as it still had the configuration string saying it was a server, not a workstation, at least that was the case when I used it, I would be surprised if Microsoft finally patched this, I also wouldn't be surprised if they didn't...



FordGT90Concept said:


> Which still means that the game won't run on any x64 OS.



Correct, but there are actually Tages x64 driver, the problem is the crappy old install(the game is rather old), the steam version works though.   But again, we were talking about starforce games installing, so this doesn't matter one bit.


----------



## animal007uk (Jan 24, 2010)

not that it matters but i ran the new batman game on this pc with 1 gig of ram while waiting for my 4 gig of ram and windows 7 worked fine wouldent even call it slow so to be honest 2 gig is good but 4 is better.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> As I already said, while it seems like symantics, it this contect it actually makes a difference.  Server 2008 R2 being engineered off the Win7 core, instead of the reverse like the case with XP x64 and Server 2003, makes a difference.


There is absolutely no evidence of that.  Windows 7 was based off of Server 2008. just as XP x64 was based off of Server 2003.  Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 were co-developed just as Server 2003 R2 and XP x64 were co-developed.  The *only* difference is that Windows XP x64 launched over a half a year before Server 2003 R2 (probably because Active Directory need serious overhauling for x64 Edition) where as Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 launched on the same date.





newtekie1 said:


> Microsoft actually changed a lot, again they didn't have as much time with XP x64, it was rushed to the market to fill an idiot demand for a 64-bit Desktop OS.


Let's look at the facts: The first AMD64 processor to be released came out in September 2003.  XP x64 didn't launch until April 2005.  Microsoft had at least (AMD most likely sent Microsoft engineering samples in order to fast-track the development of the OS because AMD64 is useless without Microsoft's support) one and a half years to implement XP x64.  *It was not rushed*.  I got it just two months after release and that OS worked perfectly right out of the starting gate.  It is four months since Windows 7 came out and I already have more problems than I can shake a stick at (IE8 is practically broke, WMP12 is practically broke, click n' dragging files has a clear hang-up, and networking has obvious glitches).  Server 2008 came out in Februrary 2008 and Windows 7 came out in October 2009, that's *a year and a half too*.  XP x64 had at least equal dev time as Windows 7.  Which was really rushed?  I'd say Windows 7 because of all the issues.

Have you ever used XP x64 Edition at length?




newtekie1 said:


> Check OS Name String and match it up with a list of supported OSes: The problem with this is if new OSes come out, then what?


That's exactly what I said.




newtekie1 said:


> But that is the same problem that applications that go by version number face, except more so with version number because it can change even on the same OS, a service pack can change the version number.


Service packs change the build number, not the major and minor numbers.  When I code an app for a specific platform, I only check major and minor.  If I need to make sure that a service pack is installed, I check the build number for equal or greater than.




newtekie1 said:


> Check OS Configuration String: ...


That doesn't even exist.  I finally remembered how to check it via WMI (Win32_OperatingSystem):
http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394239(VS.85).aspx

ProductType:
1 Work Station
2 Domain Controller
3 Server

Any application that checked just version number would flag XP x64 as potentially Server 2003 just as any application that checked just for Server 2008 would flag Windows 7.  They have to check the Product type to distinguish between Windows 7 (Work Station) and Server 2008 (Domain Controller or Server).  OperatingSystemSKU will give you even more information about version 6 and up (Vista, 7, and Server 2008).


----------



## jjFarking (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Funny, I can't find any good information about this.  Link me to a C, C++, VB, or C# article that pulls that information.



Would THIS be of any assistance?


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

jjFarking said:


> Would THIS be of any assistance?


No, that's what we discussed earlier in this thread.  I just edited my post with the correct info (WMI ProductType and maybe OperatingSystemSKU).


----------



## jjFarking (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No, that's what we discussed earlier in this thread.  I just edited my post with the correct info (WMI ProductType and maybe OperatingSystemSKU).



Fair enough mate. I didn't see that earlier part of the thread


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> There is absolutely no evidence of that.  Windows 7 was based off of Server 2008. just as XP x64 was based off of Server 2003.  Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 were co-developed just as Server 2003 R2 and XP x64 were co-developed.  The *only* difference is that Windows XP x64 launched over a half a year before Server 2003 R2 (probably because Active Directory need serious overhauling for x64 Edition) where as Server 2008 R2 and Windows 7 launched on the same date.



There is no evidence of THAT...see I can do that to...

Of course the evidence to back me up is that some applications won't install on XP x64 because they ID it as a server OS...not a problem with Win7 though...





FordGT90Concept said:


> Let's look at the facts: The first AMD64 processor to be released came out in September 2003.  XP x64 didn't launch until April 2005.  Microsoft had at least (AMD most likely sent Microsoft engineering samples in order to fast-track the development of the OS because AMD64 is useless without Microsoft's support) one and a half years to implement XP x64.  *It was not rushed*.  I got it just two months after release and that OS worked perfectly right out of the starting gate.  It is four months since Windows 7 came out and I already have more problems than I can shake a stick at (IE8 is practically broke, WMP12 is practically broke, click n' dragging files has a clear hang-up, and networking has obvious glitches).  Server 2008 came out in Februrary 2008 and Windows 7 came out in October 2009, that's *a year and a half too*.  XP x64 had at least equal dev time as Windows 7.  Which was really rushed?  I'd say Windows 7 because of all the issues.



Microsoft was totally caught off guard by the demand for x64, they did not believe there would be a demand for Desktop x64 OSes.  When AMD released the first desktop x64 processor, Microsoft had to scramble to fill the unexpected demand that arose.

The implementation was clearly rushed, the poor support and buggy OS makes that painfully obvious.

And again, when Server 2008 came out has nothing to do with Win7.

And every problem you have listed for Win7 doesn't exist, sorry, but they don't.  IE8 works pefectly fine, WMP12 works perfectly fine(execpt for occassionaly forgetting where I resize the window after closing), and file transfers work better than ever!



FordGT90Concept said:


> Have you ever used XP x64 Edition at length?



Yes, I have, used it for almost a year after it came out, nothing but headaches.  It was, and I assume still is, a buggy piece of shit with very little driver support.  And while I don't use it today, I still have clients that do.  And I can list at least one specific program that will not install on XP x64, but will on Win7 and Vista, M-AUDIO Pro Tools.  While the way you do it works most of the time, not everyone does it that way, some do go down to the build number, and Pro Tools is one of them.  In fact, they just recently released Vista SP2 drivers, before that, I had to install it with SP1 first, then upgrade the machine to SP2.  Win7 support didn't exist until that release either, but at least with issues like that I know it is far more likely to release Win7 supportive versions than XP x64...because if they haven't released XP x64 support yet, they probably never will.

I'm starting to wonder if you've ever used Win7 though...

And I'm also wondering why anyone in their right mind would actually thing XP x64 is better after using both at length.  It seems like you are more on a Win7 bashing tirade now than anything else...




FordGT90Concept said:


> Service packs change the build number, not the major and minor numbers.  When I code an app for a specific platform, I only check major and minor.  If I need to make sure that a service pack is installed, I check the build number for equal or greater than.



Well good for you, but how does that matter?  So you do it slightly better than other, so we should assume everyone does it this way?  Man I wish I lived in that perfect world you do.

Oh, and again, that does help the matter of a new OS coming out and totally screwing things up.



FordGT90Concept said:


> That doesn't even exist.  I finally remembered how to check it via WMI (Win32_OperatingSystem):
> http://msdn.microsoft.com/en-us/library/aa394239(VS.85).aspx
> 
> ProductType:
> ...



I love how you say it doesn't exist, then go on to explain it...

This is how 90% of applications that are supposed to run on workstations, but not on servers(i.e. free anti-viruses) detect the OS, it is a fundumental of programming...

I'm done with this argument, you don't know what you are talking about, obviously and the thread is useless...:shadedshu


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Jan 24, 2010)

Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss.  You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing.  That's a shame.


----------



## newtekie1 (Jan 24, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss.  You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing.  That's a shame.



I don't think you've provided anything worth learning by anyone, other than your constant babbling about how great XP x64 is, and how much "better" it is than Vista and Win7, which pretty much no one else here would agree with...


----------



## animal007uk (Jan 24, 2010)

i think it all depends on the user and the pc they have at the time, i have used windows xp x64 and personly never had a prob with it. its the same for windows 7 it works perfect for me.

programs are only buggy to the ppl that have probs, it dosent meen the programs are bad.

on the other hand vista for me is a crock of shite, where as it works fine for many people.


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Three of them wouldn't work on *any 64-bit operating system*, two were the result of a one-time Microsoft experiment three years ago, and the remain two aren't anything to write home about (except to complain about Stormrise's ridiculously stupid control system).



compatibility mode, replacement installers, or installing to a VM/older machine and copying the files across (may require a noCD crack, but thats legal in this case) - and they often work in vista/7 in compatibility mode. I've done it with a few oooooold games of mine.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm to Lazy to read this Entire Post But I'm running My HTPC with 2gbs of ram With Vista HP x64 With 512mb dedicated to the Integrated Video Leaving 1.5gb for the system...

Sure it takes an extra 30 seconds to Boot...So what! it still Functions Quite Well at 1920x1080 with NetFlix, Hulu, DVD's Media Center etc...(I'll check BR playback in a week)

And my HTPC was built with mostly "Generic"  parts (seiously) 

I also ran 2gb with this system But adding 2gb to make 4gb made a huge difference in performance But not really that much IF you know what i mean It's like getting new suspension and tires on your car


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2010)

why bother with 512MB? 32MB is enough for 1080P video (without hardware accel) and 256MB is enough with.


----------



## Deleted member 67555 (Jan 25, 2010)

I'm sure there is a better fix But it gets rid of a stutter I get on Hulu when it first starts...
I have not noticed one bit of Difference with anything else even setting it at sideport+128 (256)

I have Flash setting at 32mb in Hulu so I know what you say is absolutely correct...unlimited caused a constant stutter


----------



## Super XP (Jan 25, 2010)

Mussels said:


> why bother with 512MB? 32MB is enough for 1080P video (without hardware accel) and 256MB is enough with.


The more the better right?


----------



## Mussels (Jan 25, 2010)

Super XP said:


> The more the better right?



but its eating his system ram, which may well be more important.


as for hulu etc, if its firefox you're using, you need to read this


----------



## Ainvar (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Ignorance (on your behalf) is bliss.  You could have learned a lot from this discussion but it appears you choose to learn nothing.  That's a shame.



If you can show facts I would like to hear it.  But windows xp 64 was a FLOP it was useless to home base users.  Why it was due to  hardware they where  only setup for 32 bit.  Not 64 bit.  I know I use it.  If you are having game issues due to windows xp 64 it due to you are useing a age OS that not supported by the hardware at it time. 

If you know computers I would love you to tell us about the time when 16bit change to 32 bit and tell us how long it took for 32 bit to be main stream.  From the frist cpu that supported 32 bit to the frist 32 bit windows that only use 32 software.

Learn your facts FordGT90Concept.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 1, 2010)

I hold FordGT90Concept with high regards, though we did have our differences at one point in time. 

Windows 7 x64 is awesome, completely different than XP & Vista. it uses memory very well and your system feels much more responsive in windows, games, watching movies and viewing pics' etc.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2010)

Ainvar said:


> If you can show facts I would like to hear it.  But windows xp 64 was a FLOP it was useless to home base users.  Why it was due to  hardware they where  only setup for 32 bit.  Not 64 bit.  I know I use it.  If you are having game issues due to windows xp 64 it due to you are useing a age OS that not supported by the hardware at it time.


Every OS has serious problems with backwards compatibility.  Try to get the original Earth 2140 (requires an ISA sound card) to work on Windows anything NT based, for example.  Only a handful of games don't work on XP x64.  Of those, 1/3 won't work on XP at all (DX10 only), 1/3 won't work on Vista/7 x64 either (requires 32-bit), the remaining 1/3 would work on XP and XP x64 but against the publisher's wishes (blacklisted previous OS's to boost the sales of a new one).

As far as the OS itself is concerned, I started using it 2 months (June 2005) after release (April 2005) and never had a problem with it to date on four separate hardware configurations (Athlon 4000+, Opteron 180, Core i7 920, dual Xeon 5310).  I had all necessary drivers and all drivers functioned as expected.

People just love to hate Windows XP x64 just as they love to hate Windows ME.  It is irrational and unwarranted.




Ainvar said:


> If you know computers I would love you to tell us about the time when 16bit change to 32 bit and tell us how long it took for 32 bit to be main stream.  From the frist cpu that supported 32 bit to the frist 32 bit windows that only use 32 software.


I have a Windows 95 B machine sitting two feet away from me and have used DOS and Windows 3.1 extensively.  I doubt there's little you could tell me I don't already know.

There is no "32 bit windows that only use 32 software."  Windows 95 through Windows 7 32-bit supports 16-bit applications.  The first version of Windows to exclude 16-bit support was none other than XP x64.




Super XP said:


> I hold FordGT90Concept with high regards, though we did have our differences at one point in time.


Yeah, when I saw what came to be known as Phenom X4 wasn't going to stand a chance against Core 2 Quad and you stood your ground that it would. I still haven't seen that butt shot picture yet you promised. 




Super XP said:


> Windows 7 x64 is awesome, completely different than XP & Vista. it uses memory very well and your system feels much more responsive in windows, games, watching movies and viewing pics' etc.


On that note, Freelancer is killing the audio, initializing Setup engine/Uninstall takes forever, "calculating disk space" takes forever, and the Installer errors when trying to install VC++ 6.0 runtime on my Windows 7 machine.  The game ran perfectly on XP x64.


I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> People just love to hate Windows XP x64 just as they love to hate Windows ME.  It is irrational and unwarranted.



I'm going to ignore most of the other crap, as it isn't really important.  However, I would like to comment on this, and for the most part agree with you, although I wouldn't say it is like ME as ME really was a piece of crap.

Really, XP x64 takes a bad rap because of it's initial problems.  I'd say it is closer to Vista's situation than anything else.  Poor driver support, and software incompatibilities in the beginning really gave both a bad name.  In reality, driver and software support for both have improved greatly since they were released, and both are actually very usable OSes.(I'm typing this from a Vista x64 machine by the way, Rig4 in my sig.)  However, people still can't get over the initial bad name.

While neither is perfect, XP x64 definitely has more problems still to this day than Vista or Win7 with modern software and hardware.  A lot of hardware still released very recently does not have XP x64 drivers, and never will, while Vista and Win7 support is far more likely.  Generic/cheap NICs and wireless cards tend to really fail in XP x64 support particularly(and Linksys just fails at 64-bit support in general).  I've got a RC-400 Gigabit adaptor that simply will not work under XP x64, but works perfectly fine under Vista and Win7 x64, for example.  You can give anecdotal stories to try and make either souund better, but they aren't worth anything.  Do these problem make it a bad OS?  No, not really, for the most part it is actually pretty good.  However, Vista and Win7 are both better.

However, this discussion really has gotten way off from the initial topic, memory usage.  And while Win7 x64 might use a slight bit more memory than XP x64, the difference is marginal and not worth going back to an older OS with more problems.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2010)

No OS is perfect and that will always be the case.  We can argue where one succeeds and the other fails on a case by case basis until we meet our makers.  In terms of the overall package, we'll just have to agree to disagree.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> No OS is perfect and that will always be the case.  We can argue where one succeeds and the other fails on a case by case basis until we meet our makers.  In terms of the overall package, we'll just have to agree to disagree.



This we can agree on, no OS is perfect.  And really it comes down to the specific situation as to which is the best fit.

There are plenty of nice features in Win7(and some in Vista) that definitely make them better OSes than XP(and XP x64), but there are definitely times when XP(and XP x64) are better suited.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.


Well Windows 7 x64 runs a lot faster and does a better job with memory. But it's obviously not 100% perfect yet. They still need to work out some minor driver issues. 

As for Phenom II being really competative, AMD's CEO was at fault, he took the company down the wrong road thinking he can squeeze eversingle last bit out of old technology.

The new CEO is a different story and Bulldozer is looking more like its ready to Bulldoze the competition


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Well Windows 7 x64 runs a lot faster and does a better job with memory.


False on both accounts for me.  The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network.  XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.




Super XP said:


> The new CEO is a different story and Bulldozer is looking more like its ready to Bulldoze the competition


I'm not convinced but we will see.  Intel currently has a huge advantage with symmetrical multithreading.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> False on both accounts for me.  The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network.  XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.
> 
> I'm not convinced but we will see.  Intel currently has a huge advantage with symmetrical multithreading.


That's fair to say. Only time will tell whether AMD steps up to the plate. And lets hope they do. Good competition will only benefit us that buy the products. it forces both Intel and AMD to come out with crazy fast technologies.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> False on both accounts for me.  The kernel constantly freezes when doing simple tasks such as opening a context menu for a file or streaming data over the network.  XP x64 uses less memory than Windows 7 x64 and is equally responsive or faster.



Another point we are going to have to disagree on.  I've yet to get a kernal freeze when openning a context menu on a file.  The only time I've seen anything like that is when opening a toolbar full of shortcuts on my taskbar.  And even then, the same toolbar takes the same amount of time to load on XP, but with XP all the names show up and are clickable, it just takes a long time for the icons to load.  With Win7, the whole menu doesn't show up until it loads all the icons.  In reality, it takes the same amount of time if I wait for the icons to load in XP(maybe even a little longer), but with XP I don't have to wait for the icons to load.

And he wasn't talking about how much memory the OS uses, he was talking about HOW it uses it.  Win7 and Vista both use memory better than XP.  They are a lot better about managing what is in the page file vs. what is in actual memory.  There tends to be far less swapping going on with Win7/Vista than with XP, which generally leads to a much more responsive system despite the appearance of more memory being used.  Which again takes us back to the original topic, and why I actually prefer Vista and Win7 on 2GB of RAM over XP.

*When I say XP, I mean both 32 and 64 bit.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Win7 and Vista both use memory better than XP.


On Aero. 


XP x64 and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 have about the same size page file when the amount of RAM is equal.  Performance is still generally better in XP x64 so that is yet another moot point.


----------



## theonewhoknowstoomuc (Feb 1, 2010)

yeh,i would also wait unless you absolutely have to do it now.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 1, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> On Aero.
> 
> 
> XP x64 and Windows 7 Ultimate x64 have about the same size page file when the amount of RAM is equal.  Performance is still generally better in XP x64 so that is yet another moot point.



Aero actually makes little difference actually.

And no, XP x64 performance is generally not better, as we've all told you Win7 _*IS*_ snappier and more responsive than XP.  Programs do open faster, and respond faster also.  You can disagree all you want, and I know you will, but there are more people here that seem to agree with me than you, including the OP.

And I'm sure you're going to go on about XP getting a few more FPS in games...oooohhh the humanity...


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 1, 2010)

I only found one benchmark comparing Windows XP x64 and Windows 7 x64; however, Windows 7 x64 was still in beta:
http://www.windows7news.com/forum/windows-7-general/windows-xp-x64-vs-windows-7-x64/

XP and XP x64 are significantly different enough that XP can't stand in place of XP x64 in a benchmark against Windows Vista or Windows 7 x64.


It may be "snappier" for you but it isn't for me and I know why.  BOINC bogs down Windows 7, it doesn't bog down XP (32-bit nor 64-bit).  Windows 7 being more multithreaded means that async communication between threads gets held back because Windows 7 itself can't anticipate that uneven workload.  It therefore causes hangs and general unresponsiveness when XP (being mostly just one thread) can fly through that stuff because it doesn't have to wait for async results.


----------



## johnspack (Feb 2, 2010)

XP64 is on the Server 2003 x64 support cycle,  and does get regular updates as noted above,  and it is still faster than even Win7 x64.  I use both,  and game mainly under XP64 because they all scream under it!  However,  Win7 x64 is much better on system resources,  and probably would run just fine with 2gigs.  Might as well just get that.
Edit:  and despite what any benchmarking shows,  I run both,  and run the same games on both.  XP64 is much faster,  sorry!


----------



## theonewhoknowstoomuc (Feb 2, 2010)

*the ram discussion*

the 1 or 2 frames difference should be so irrelevant that why the hell would it even matter?
if you intend to get more than 3 or 4 gigs of ram,load up the 64 bit operating system,ok?

And really the windows xp pro 64 bit is getting ancient,looks nasty and it seems to have been proven several times that windows 7 64 bit is actually faster,there will always be people desperate to hang on to something that is proven to be sub-par but its no reason not to just do it.

i also have ran both but now with the windows 7 including windows xp compatibility,why in gods name would you plug up your boot loader,hard drives and life to have a redundant,
useless op system in your pc?HECK,why not throw in a couple distros of LINUX and while your at it,drive yourself totally insane and put on leopard or tiger or whatever the heck that CRAP is.

HONESTLY,FOR THE RIDICULOUSLY LOW PRICE OF DDR2 RAM,THROW IN 6 OR 8 GIGS AND ROCK N ROLL.i have 2 2 gig sticks of patriot extreme ddr2/800,and 2 1 gigs of ocz fatality ddr2/1066 and all of my op systems see it all and use it up.its like beating a dead horse?

just do it already,now or later? SEE MY SIG!!!!


----------



## Super XP (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I only found one benchmark comparing Windows XP x64 and Windows 7 x64; however, Windows 7 x64 was still in beta:
> http://www.windows7news.com/forum/windows-7-general/windows-xp-x64-vs-windows-7-x64/
> 
> XP and XP x64 are significantly different enough that XP can't stand in place of XP x64 in a benchmark against Windows Vista or Windows 7 x64.
> ...


Have you considered something is wrong with your system setup? How about a system format and a re-install of Windows 7 x64? I've not heard such a thing where Win 7 caused hands & unresponsiveness. Currenty its widly evident that this is not happening with Win 7 x86 & x64. Maybe in Vista, but not in 7.

Just to clarify, we are talking about the retail version of Windows 7 x64 right? The beta may be a different story.


----------



## Goodman (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> I still have no reason to like Win 7 x64 over XP x64.



Then why are you using Win7 x64 Ultimate? (just a question)
Ditch Win7 & install XP x64 right now! come on hurry up!, go! ,go! ,go!... (just joking )


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2010)

Super XP said:


> Have you considered something is wrong with your system setup? How about a system format and a re-install of Windows 7 x64? I've not heard such a thing where Win 7 caused hands & unresponsiveness. Currenty its widly evident that this is not happening with Win 7 x86 & x64. Maybe in Vista, but not in 7.
> 
> Just to clarify, we are talking about the retail version of Windows 7 x64 right? The beta may be a different story.


There's absolutely nothing wrong with my install of Windows 7 (except Windows 7, that is).  It was a clean install from day one and this install is less than three weeks old.

Like I said, 99.9% of the unresponsiveness is caused by BOINC and Windows fighting over who goes first.  I turn BOINC off, most (WMP12 still runs like crap) of the problems go away.  It is a common problem with all heavily multithreaded applications because Windows 7 thread priority system has remained virtually unchanged since Windows NT (4.0).

It is a fully updated Windows 7 Ultimate 64-bit for System Builders.




Goodman said:


> Then why are you using Win7 x64 Ultimate? (just a question)
> Ditch Win7 & install XP x64 right now! come on hurry up!, go! ,go! ,go!... (just joking )


Because stores don't accept returns on opened software and I don't have enough time to reinstall XP x64.


----------



## Goodman (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Because stores don't accept returns on opened software and I don't have enough time to reinstall XP x64.



You could always sell the copy of Win7 without loosing to much money on it...

I remember trying XP 64 when it was Beta but didn't like it... anyhow i would never go back to an older OS that doesn't makes much sense to me & beside the end of support for XP is near , i'll say 1 year at the most.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 2, 2010)

Just to touch on the issue of support for XP.

It is NOT on the same support cycle as Server 2003, do your research.

Both Windows XP and XP x64 ended mainstream support 4/14/2009, and both will end extended support 4/8/2014.  Server 2003 will still recieve mainstream support until 7/13/2010, and will recieve extended support until 7/14/2015.


----------



## Super XP (Feb 2, 2010)

Maybe MS should come out with a patch or something to resolve the issues FORD is stating.

I loved Win XP x64, that was my gaming OS at the time and it ran great for me. Though I feel that Win 7 x64 runs a lot more smoother and less buggy than the XP x64


----------



## Ainvar (Feb 2, 2010)

I did like win xp 64.  I had a Amd system that supported 64 bit.  Where Intel was still 32 bit at the time.  Which most people go if my system dont support it well it not worth it.  So lack of drivers and hardware support at the time was Crap if you ask a company at the time will you be making a 64 verson for win xp pro 64 they would go HUH, what mybe or Idk.  It why all the game for the last 3 or 4 years stayed 32 bit.

If mirosoft waited untel Intel was also 64 bit I think windows xp 64 would of work alot better.  We would had a betterwindows xp pro 64bit, vista or Windows 7 now.

I wish Amd and Intel where still fighting for domanation on the fastest chips.  Becuse it draws in better cpu with lower prices.

Now the war seem to between Geforce and Ati.

Question about Window xp 64.  Will they support the new tech like usb 3, Touch Screen, and other hardware from today?


----------



## Mussels (Feb 2, 2010)

Ainvar said:


> Question about Window xp 64.  Will they support the new tech like usb 3, Touch Screen, and other hardware from today?



My guess is not, or if they do - bare minimum.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2010)

Goodman said:


> I remember trying XP 64 when it was Beta but didn't like it... anyhow i would never go back to an older OS that doesn't makes much sense to me & beside the end of support for XP is near , i'll say 1 year at the most.


Looks like Windows XP x64 will continue to have support through March 2018 thanks to being on the Server 2003 update cycle:
http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/lifecycle.mspx





newtekie1 said:


> Just to touch on the issue of support for XP.
> 
> It is NOT on the same support cycle as Server 2003, do your research.
> 
> Both Windows XP and XP x64 ended mainstream support 4/14/2009, and both will end extended support 4/8/2014.  Server 2003 will still recieve mainstream support until 7/13/2010, and will recieve extended support until 7/14/2015.


Quoting: http://support.microsoft.com/lifecycle/?LN=en-gb&C2=1173


> Support ends 24 months after the next service pack releases or at the end of the product's support lifecycle, whichever comes first.


Because XP x64 and Server 2003 share the same service packs, how long XP x64 is around is directly connected to how long Server 2003 is around.




Ainvar said:


> Will they support the new tech like usb 3, Touch Screen, and other hardware from today?


USB 3: yes (manufacturer provided driver)
Touch Screen: yes (not multitouch)
Hardware Today: generally yes (at least from mainstream providers like Intel, AMD, and NVIDIA).


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> Looks like Windows XP x64 will continue to have support through March 2018 thanks to being on the Server 2003 update cycle:
> http://www.microsoft.com/windowsserver2003/lifecycle.mspx
> 
> 
> ...



Anyway:

1.) Going by your Service pack theory. SP2 was released for Server 2003 and XP x64 in March 2007.  So by your theory, both should already be out of their support cycles.  No SP3 is planned for either.  

1a.) However, the part about the Service Pack is talking about support for the Service Pack only.  Install problems and crap like that related directly to the service pack, NOT the entire OS product.

2.) The support lifecycle of XP x64 is here. The support lifecycle of Server 2003 R2 is here.  It doesn't take a genius to see the dates are significantly different, and match up with the dates I provided earlier.  It also doesn't take a genius to figure out that XP x64 has the same life cycle as XP seen here.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2010)

July 14, 2015 (Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition) compared to April 8, 2014 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition) is not a huge difference.  XP x64 came out before Server 2003 x64, hence, support is discontinued a little earlier.

FYI, there was a lot of udpates for XP Pro and XP Pro x64 in late 2009 and a few already in 2010.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> July 14, 2015 (Server 2003 Standard x64 Edition) compared to April 8, 2014 (Windows XP Professional x64 Edition) is not a huge difference.  XP x64 came out before Server 2003 x64, hence, support is discontinued a little earlier.
> 
> FYI, there was a lot of udpates for XP Pro and XP Pro x64 in late 2009 and a few already in 2010.



Over a year extra isn't a huge difference?  Yeah...

And didn't you just say three posts ago that XP x64 and Server 2003 were on the same support cycle, now they are different...

No...FYI, there was a lot of updates for XP pro and XP Pro x64 in late 2009 and a few already in 2010.  You are the one that seems to think support should have ended for Server 2003 and XP x64 already...that was your theory...remember?

You are really going in circles here, I think you've postes so much BS, it is getting a little hard for you to keep it all straight and not contradict yourself at this point.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> And didn't you just say three posts ago that XP x64 and Server 2003 were on the same support cycle, now they are different...


They are.  When Server 2003 gets an update, XP x64 gets it too.  They have the same "support" cycle but obviously different "life" cycles.  XP x64 may still get Server 2003 updates after its life cycle is up because they are on the same support cycle.  If it bricks the XP x64 though, Microsoft won't lift a finger to fix it during that interim period.




newtekie1 said:


> You are the one that seems to think support should have ended for Server 2003 and XP x64 already...that was your theory...remember?


Eh?  Microsoft continues to update XP x64 and will for quite a while as businesses migrate to new operating systems.  I think support should continue as it is because there are still millions of computers running Windows XP/Server 2003 in one flavor or another.


----------



## newtekie1 (Feb 2, 2010)

FordGT90Concept said:


> They are.  When Server 2003 gets an update, XP x64 gets it too.  They have the same "support" cycle but obviously different "life" cycles.  XP x64 may still get Server 2003 updates after its life cycle is up because they are on the same support cycle.  If it bricks the XP x64 though, Microsoft won't lift a finger to fix it during that interim period.



Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  Yes, right now, when Server 2003 gets an update, XP x64 does also.  However, that will stop when XP x64's support cycle ends.  The updates will no longer work with XP x64, there might be ways for force them, but they will stop installing automatically or via the downloadable installers.




FordGT90Concept said:


> Eh?  Microsoft continues to update XP x64 and will for quite a while as businesses migrate to new operating systems.  I think support should continue as it is because there are still millions of computers running Windows XP/Server 2003 in one flavor or another.



Again, because you seem to have comprehension problems.  *YOU'RE* the one that claimed support will end 24 months after the last SP's release date(March 2009) according to your quote from Microsoft.  I and everyone else knows that isn't the case, but you seemed to want to make a big point about it.

I think the support cycle is good, in fact I think they've dragged out support for XP way too long, just like they dragged out support for 98 way too long.  Yes, millions are still using XP, just like millions were still using 98, but at some point you just have to cut support and the people that want to hold on to old archaic technology have to bite the bullet and move on.  IMO, support for XP should end this year, not 4 years from now.  The server side is a little different, since there is more involved with migrating a server compared to a desktop, as they tend to be more mission critical.


----------



## FordGT90Concept (Feb 2, 2010)

newtekie1 said:


> Unfortunately, that is not how it works.  Yes, right now, when Server 2003 gets an update, XP x64 does also.  However, that will stop when XP x64's support cycle ends.  The updates will no longer work with XP x64, there might be ways for force them, but they will stop installing automatically or via the downloadable installers.


We'll see.  Since Windows 2000/Server 2000, this is the first workstation OS to share an update cycle with a server OS.


----------



## warmach1ne (Feb 4, 2010)

DaveK said:


> I'm using Windows 7 64bit with 2GB RAM and it runs fine for me.



I'm on the same boat. Although, I don't use apps that may be memory hungry.


----------

