Announcement

Collapse
No announcement yet.

[OT] Win XP 64 is a non standard OS

Collapse
X
 
  • Filter
  • Time
  • Show
Clear All
new posts

    [OT] Win XP 64 is a non standard OS

    http://theinquirer.net/?article=24004
    According to Cannon. This kind of freaks me out. I mean, this may mean instead of being able to simply replace the mobo/cpu/video card/memory in a computer, we might have to replace the entire thing when Longhorn comes out.

    BTW, I also saw the Geforce 6600 is also targeted for a price cut:
    http://theinquirer.net/?article=23988

    #2
    No, because as long as your hardware is standard, Longhorn will work fine.

    Comment


      #3
      Originally posted by placebo
      No, because as long as your hardware is standard, Longhorn will work fine.
      Source?

      (btw, update your sig, i'm not Daspadger anymore. )

      Comment


        #4
        Well, having an nonstandard OS installed on your computer doesn't make the components nonstandard...?


        Unless I'm understanding this wrong (or not at all)

        Comment


          #5
          Fine by me. Time for an UPgrade!

          Comment


            #6
            Originally posted by placebo
            Well, having an nonstandard OS installed on your computer doesn't make the components nonstandard...?


            Unless I'm understanding this wrong (or not at all)
            ****, placebo wins.

            Comment


              #7
              Placebo is correct.

              There's no real benefit to Cannon creating 64-bit drivers for their hardware at this point in time. However, a company that makes hardware such as video-cards would have to be stupid not to have 64-bit drivers, especially when '64-bit' is being advertised primarily towards gamers, and is growing in popularity.

              In short, this is only an issue when it comes to peripherals.

              Comment


                #8
                Originally posted by placebo
                Well, having an nonstandard OS installed on your computer doesn't make the components nonstandard...?


                Unless I'm understanding this wrong (or not at all)
                That's not the point.

                Reading this article, I think drivers support in WinXP 64 changed dramatically from win2000/XP which use WDM (windows driver model). As WinXP 64 is in beta testing, drivers support might change till the release of WinXP 64. Thus, no one wants to develop drivers that might only work with the beta version of win XP64 (and not the release version).

                Comment


                  #9
                  I wonder if you could do a triple boot computer. I mean put Win98SE on one HD, WinXP Pro on another HD and Longhorn on another HD.

                  Heh, that would be wicked odd.

                  Only thing is though, Win98SE won't work with PCI-E or nforce3 or 4 motherboards.

                  But, as long as you have a motherboard with VIA chipset and AGP slot you might be able to do it although you'd be limited to geforce 6800 (I think).

                  If the performance gains from a dual core processor isn't enough to justify the cost, I might go for a Sempron 3700+. That apparently will be the limit for the socket 754 and is expected to come out next year.

                  Comment


                    #10
                    Originally posted by Vive_le_Quebec
                    I wonder if you could do a triple boot computer. I mean put Win98SE on one HD, WinXP Pro on another HD and Longhorn on another HD.
                    Yes, you could. I've done a quad-boot setup before. I'm not sure aobut how many different boot setups the Windows will allow via boot.ini, though; I've done it with LILO and GRUB.

                    Comment


                      #11
                      What you want to be able to do though is to have small, 5GB or less boot partitions, and then a shared Documents partition. Otherwise it's just frustrating; however, it's hard to get Linux and Windows on the same file system, if I'm not mistaken.

                      Comment


                        #12
                        Originally posted by placebo
                        What you want to be able to do though is to have small, 5GB or less boot partitions, and then a shared Documents partition. Otherwise it's just frustrating; however, it's hard to get Linux and Windows on the same file system, if I'm not mistaken.
                        What do you mean with frustrating? I read Win98SE won't use NTFS. So, you need to install it using FAT32. I read using FAT32 for WinXP won't allow you to get the advantages of NTFS. Then I read someone had a hard time going from FAT32/NTFS to only NTFS on one drive. I found a whole list of directions to follow to convert a FAT32/NTFS drive to a single partition. I figured it was too complicated to go from a dual boot on a single drive with two different partitions.

                        I was thinking the easiest thing to do is to install a second hard drive and install WinXP Pro on it (with the first one being Win98SE). I'd have one in FAT32 and the other in NTFS.

                        Comment


                          #13
                          Originally posted by vrxGz
                          ...especially when '64-bit' is being advertised primarily towards gamers, and is growing in popularity.
                          You are incorrect. 64-bit Windows is not being advertised as a "Gamer" platform.


                          Where does it say "gamer"?
                          Top 5 reasons to get to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition

                          High performance platform for the next generation of applications High performance platform for the next generation of applications

                          Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is a rich platform that enables the next generation of high-performance computing. 64-bit native applications can deliver more data per clock cycle, making them run faster and more efficiently.
                          Large memory support Large memory support

                          Windows XP Professional x64 Edition supports up to 128 gigabytes (GB) of RAM and 16 terabytes of virtual memory, enabling applications to run faster when working with large data sets. Applications can preload substantially more data into virtual memory, allowing rapid access by the 64-bit processor.
                          Flexibility Flexibility

                          Windows XP Professional x64 Edition provides a rich platform to integrate 64-bit applications and existing 32-bit applications using the Windows on Windows 64 (WOW64) x86 emulation layer, providing customers with the ability to move to 64-bit computing without having to sacrifice their existing investment in 32-bit software and Windows expertise.
                          Multiprocessing and multicore Multiprocessing and multicore

                          Windows XP Professional x64 Edition is designed to support up to two single or multicore x64 processors for maximum performance and scalability.
                          Same programming model Same programming model

                          Developers with 32-bit skills will be comfortable and quickly productive in the 64-bit Windows environment, finding it virtually identical to the development environment for 32-bit Windows.


                          Again, note that this is not marketed towards gamers.


                          Windows® XP 64-Bit Edition is designed to address the most demanding needs of technical workstation users who require large amounts of memory and floating point performance in areas such as mechanical design and analysis, digital content creation and scientific and high-performance computing applications.


                          Maybe in the future it will be a gamers platform:

                          Game Performance Evaluation Comparison:

                          The focus of this article is to determine if upgrading to Windows XP Professional x64 Edition with an AMD Athlon64 would give us a better gaming experience in current games. We used eight games for our evaluation including one that supported Win64 AMD64 specifically.

                          What we found isn’t too shocking really, but rather reassuring. In all the 32-bit games tested, we saw overall static performance using Windows XP Pro x64 Edition. The only game in our lineup that had a specific Win64 AMD64 instruction path, The Chronicles of Riddick, actually performed worse in 64-bit than it did in 32-bit Windows.


                          The Bottom Line:

                          We were happy to see our “flat” results in most games and that most ran without compatibility issues. To recap, there are four solid needs for 64-bit gaming to show advantages. 1.) You need to have a 64-bit capable CPU such as the AMD Athlon64. 2.) You need to have a 64-bit capable OS such as Windows XP Pro x64. 3.) You need to have 64-bit drivers for your components. 4.) You need an application that is written to take advantage of a 64-bit OS.

                          Number 4 is the key here. The application or game itself must be written to take advantage of what your 64-bit CPU has to offer. Without this, there isn’t going to be any benefit in game performance on an x64 platform. There is a difference between just being compatible with WinXP Pro x64 Edition and actually utilizing what the 64-bit CPU can do for a game. Therefore, we are still waiting for a game that can fully take advantage of a 64-bit CPU. It seems as if the main problem for Windows XP Pro x64 Edition is the availability of 64-bit drivers, applications, and games.

                          That said, it looks as though many gamers wanting to put those seasoned Athlon AMD 64 processors to use on a new Windows XP Professional x64 Edition, can do so without much fear. I would caution you to visit the forums and make sure your “must have” game or application is x64 friendly first though.

                          Comment


                            #14
                            Urh, OK, Tim Sweeney said UT2007 would be faster with dual core but what about 64 bit? Did he mention that as well?

                            Comment


                              #15
                              Originally posted by Vive_le_Quebec
                              Urh, OK, Tim Sweeney said UT2007 would be faster with dual core but what about 64 bit? Did he mention that as well?
                              Yes, read my wonderfully transcribed Tim Sweeney interview.

                              Comment

                              Working...
                              X