Xp 64 bit

Bikerz · 3 Nov 2007 at 18:52

Is it worth getting now that I have a Q6600? Or should I realy be looking at Vista 64 bit? I dont like messing around with operating systems as always takes me ages to get them to run nicley how I want them too and everything to work with them. So is it worth chaging at all, and if so what to?

I just use pc for games and net realy, dvd buring etc.... No video editing or anything like that

username · 3 Nov 2007 at 21:16

I tried xp64 bit a few months ago and it sulked whilst trying to find drivers then didn't seemt o do any better than 32 bit xp I think vista 64 is working a lot better, well it does on mine anyway.

NathanE · 3 Nov 2007 at 21:41

If you multitask a lot then XP x64 or Vista x64 is a must IMO

Vimes · 3 Nov 2007 at 21:50

I can't see why you would be looking at a 64bit OS just by having a Q6600, as you have noted that as a reason..?

If you do decide to go for Vista 64bit I would suggest that the 2GB of RAM that you have noted in your sig could do with a boost as Vista has a large demand on memory compared to XP 32bit.

If everything runs well enough for you now then why change at all...?

Fire Wizard · 3 Nov 2007 at 23:39

Hello Bikerz, if you're looking at moving to a 64-bit Operating System then seriously consider Windows Vista. The support for Windows Vista is now excellent and the majority of the hardware and software out their now work absolutely fine under Windows Vista. However please take into account that Windows Vista 64-bit or Windows XP for that matter cannot run 16-bit coded applications and also some decidedly 32-bit applications actually have an inclusion of 16-bit code in the installers. However that's very far and few between and really isn't something you need to worry about unless you specifically know of anything that you use that is 16-bit encoded in any way.

If you're looking at purchasing Windows Vista, then you may be debating over which edition of Windows Vista to get. Here is a great graph that compares all of the editions of Windows Vista with one another. The two you are most likely looking at are Windows Vista Home Premium and Ultimate. I have used both and in my opinion Vista Ultimate is not worth the extra £50 over Home Premium.

Vimes said:
If you do decide to go for Vista 64bit I would suggest that the 2GB of RAM that you have noted in your sig could do with a boost as Vista has a large demand on memory compared to XP 32bit.

Hey Vimes, I actually disagree with you their

. Windows Vista 64-bit runs perfectly fine with 2GB of memory. Unless you will be using applications that will benefit from the extra memory or you will be running quite a few demanding programs simultaneously then in my opinion 2GB is absolutely fine. I have also yet to seen any benchmarks or articles stating that the jump from 2GB to 4GB makes quite a big difference in games. Now if anyone wishes to show me some evidence stating that there is actually quite a big increase in performance going from 2GB to 4GB of memory in games, then please post since I would be generally interested.

However, having said that, DDR2 memory is very cheap at the moment so if you are considering buying an extra 2GB or buying 4GB of memory in one go, it certainly won't do your system any harm.

Bikerz · 4 Nov 2007 at 00:26

cheers all i wont bother with xp 64 bit then. and il stay with xp for a little longer till its worth it

Vimes · 4 Nov 2007 at 08:48

Fire Wizard said:
Hey Vimes, I actually disagree with you their . Windows Vista 64-bit runs perfectly fine with 2GB of memory. Unless you will be using applications that will benefit from the extra memory or you will be running quite a few demanding programs simultaneously then in my opinion 2GB is absolutely fine. I have also yet to seen any benchmarks or articles stating that the jump from 2GB to 4GB makes quite a big difference in games. Now if anyone wishes to show me some evidence stating that there is actually quite a big increase in performance going from 2GB to 4GB of memory in games, then please post since I would be generally interested.

However, having said that, DDR2 memory is very cheap at the moment so if you are considering buying an extra 2GB or buying 4GB of memory in one go, it certainly won't do your system any harm.

You make some good points there Fire Wizard and I do remember reading one article a few days ago which noted their preference to running Vista with 4GB of memory as against 2GB. However that article was not supported by any details to support that.

My own findings were that when I had 2GB and booted to a Vista desktop and found that I had already used around 800mb up, I know I could remove the sidebar and much other eye candy, I did reflect back on XP only using around 200MB when it first loads.

I suppose it does depend on what the user is going to do with their PC but, in this case, from what the OP has noted his use is then anything greater might well be not needed.

Bikerz · 4 Nov 2007 at 09:17

NathanE said:
If you multitask a lot then XP x64 or Vista x64 is a must IMO

Multitask? What about multi core games?

zetec452 · 4 Nov 2007 at 09:31

Bikerz said:
Multitask? What about multi core games?

Multi core games will still run on 32bit apps as multi core is referring to the CPU architecture.

If I was to require a 64bit OS I'd go with Vista.

Glaucus · 4 Nov 2007 at 12:33

Vimes said:
You make some good points there Fire Wizard and I do remember reading one article a few days ago which noted their preference to running Vista with 4GB of memory as against 2GB. However that article was not supported by any details to support that.

My own findings were that when I had 2GB and booted to a Vista desktop and found that I had already used around 800mb up, I know I could remove the sidebar and much other eye candy, I did reflect back on XP only using around 200MB when it first loads.

I suppose it does depend on what the user is going to do with their PC but, in this case, from what the OP has noted his use is then anything greater might well be not needed.

That's because vista uses memory diffrent to xp. you can't compare the two. Vista uses a lot but releases it when needed. There's no point having unused memory.

Vista runs fine with 1GB, 2GB is fine for gaming. It's just because people are use to xp and think that high memory usage means a system hog. This is not the case with vista. Most people report vista running much faster than xp on there systems me including. Where games are near enough identical.

Vimes · 4 Nov 2007 at 13:10

AcidHell2 said:
That's because vista uses memory diffrent to xp. you can't compare the two. Vista uses a lot but releases it when needed. There's no point having unused memory.

Vista runs fine with 1GB, 2GB is fine for gaming. It's just because people are use to xp and think that high memory usage means a system hog. This is not the case with vista. Most people report vista running much faster than xp on there systems me including. Where games are near enough identical.

...ah I see so when I booted to Vista's desktop and it showed 800mb+ of RAM being used it so that means some of that RAM could be released if any when required by the application / game when and if needed...?
If that is the case I certainly wasn't aware of this 'dynamic' RAM type of allocation.

Glaucus · 4 Nov 2007 at 14:53

Vimes said:
...ah I see so when I booted to Vista's desktop and it showed 800mb+ of RAM being used it so that means some of that RAM could be released if any when required by the application / game when and if needed...?
If that is the case I certainly wasn't aware of this 'dynamic' RAM type of allocation.

yep that's what happens, basically in vista, unused ram is wasted ram.

So what it does is cache certain and most popular software so when you launch it, it's already loaded. But if you run a game for example all that memory is instantly released. as it doesn't need to be saved to the hdd or anything else.