Discussion in 'Windows Desktop Systems' started by Liwis, May 4, 2008.
Dear electronic punk,
Can you tell which one better xp 64bit or xp 32bit for home use?
I'm not EP, but I'll just vouch in to tell you that XP64 is simply terrible in terms of support. If you're lucky enough to find drivers for all your hardware, you might have a chance, otherwise you're best off using XP32.
I'll agree on that. If you play games, avoid it like the plague.
With xp64, I found that game loading times were alot quicker. I lost a few fps but it wasn't noticable.
I'd say if you have a 64bit CPU, you might aswell take advantage of the technology.
Never had any driver issues with x64, don't know what all the fuss is about.
Hope this helps.
Usually people tend to go with a 32 bit OS because there is more compatibility compared to a 64 bit OS. There is no need to go into 64 bit unless you have more than 3.29 or 3.19 gb of ram. Go with the 32-bit xp.
Yeah, some people who don't even use more than 2GB of memory at any given time are obsessed because they bought 4GB of RAM AND ITS MY SOVEREIGN RIGHT TO SEE IT ALL EVEN IF IT MEANS SACRIFICING PROPER USE OF EVERY 32 BIT APP I HAVE.
I don't get that mentality at all. I'd be happy with three so I'd still be able to play all my games and have drivers that work.
Yeah, I would rather have 4GB of memory and a 32-bit OS rather than a 64-bit OS. I would get to keep all my current software and games without worrying about compatibility. If i did change to a 64-bit OS, I would probably find lots of compatibility problems and it would seriously annoy me. I am not saying 64-bit sucks, but its gonna take some time for me to transfer over to a 64-bit OS, assuming that most of the compatibility problems are fixed. The main pros for a 64-bit OS is that it will be able to utilize your system rig better and that it is also a lot more secure.
Agreed. Although the time for us having to use 64-bit whether we want to or not is getting very close (at least if you want to play the cutting edge games that use so much RAM), I would still stick with 32-bit for now.
When I built two brand new systems for a customer of mine two years ago, I anticipated a mainstream move to 64-bit Windows much more quickly, so I installed 64-bit XP on her and her son's systems.
First of all, there was an audio issue under 64-bit that I didn't have under 32-bit. It required some update from MS. It couldn't have been the common HD audio issue because that update would've been required under 32-bit as well. Either that or the 32-bit driver included that hotfix but the 64-bit driver didn't.
Also, I bought a specific Pre-N wireless networking card because I had information that a 64-bit driver existed (not necessarily specifically for that card, was actually meant for another that used the same chipset). Turned out that the one she bought was a newer revision that used a different chipset, but I still found yet another driver meant for another card that worked under 64-bit.
I've worked on her computers several times since then, installing new software or updating the hardware even. I don't remember why at this time but I swore to myself that I definitely jumped the gun and wished I hadn't done so - it would've simplified things tremendously.
Of course you can always dual-boot later, so you have both 32 and 64-bit Windows. If I were going to install a 64-bit Windows on a system, I would install Vista.
I used vista home premium 64bit for a while and ended up switching back to 32bit because support just wasn't there as far as 3rd party apps go in 64bit. Maybe in a year or so when more company's have switched but as of now unless your a real techy I see no reason really to use the 64bit system.
i've used 64bit xp since it was released. also used 64bit vista for a year.
didn't have a single issue with either. had no compatibility issues with gaming, drivers, or other programs that i wanted to use.
i think the only reason a lot of companies still support 32bit and aren't trying to make things designed to run on 64bit is because theres still so many people out there still using 32bit and are too paranoid about upgrading and hell bent on believing nothing will work on it.
Maybe try it as a dual boot for a bit to see what you like.
Even Symantec Endpoint Protection, at least up to and including v11 build 1375, has limitations when installed under 64-bit, and this is a corporate product where 64-bit would be more common. It doesn't install all the elements of SEP under 64-bit that it does under 32-bit.
I don't hear people saying that "nothing" will work under 64-bit. Quite a few things don't work under 64-bit. I have used both 64 and 32-bit in a dual boot as recently as six months ago.
Change is a slow process. Most users couldn't care less whether they use 32 or 64-bit. They don't even pay attention or know either way what they use. I am not prepared to go 100% 64-bit because of the inconveniences that occur. Gradually those inconveniences are shrinking down to nothing, or at least no difference between 32 and 64-bit .
When the difference between them is next to nothing, Microsoft will stop developing 32-bit Windows and apps, and therefore only 64-bit Windows will be installed on new computers. Only then will 64-bit become the mainstream, because no matter how many of us "techies" there are, there are that many more average users who buy pre-built computers with bundled software.
Im nothing crazy on a pc, i play games (bioshock, cnc series), photoshop, and school, i have 64 bit windows vista and love it! no issues with drivers or games! Except itunes is always blacked out when it first opens..meh!
IMHO and my experience, Vista's differences between 32 and 64-bit are a lot closer to none than between XP 32 and 64-bit. Partly because Vista's 32 and 64-bit were developed at the same time, unlike XP 64-bit which was developed at the same time as Windows Server 2003 SP1, so it became based on that instead of based on 32-bit XP. Therefore 64-bit XP is treated differently that 32-bit XP by corporations who make drivers and software.
Since Vista is still the same Vista whether it's 32 or 64-bit, corporations create 32 and 64-bit versions of their drivers simultaneously any more.
I sitll have some hardware that has very recent 32-bit Vista drivers that 64-bit drivers don't exist for, whether for XP or Vista.
Ah, here's another real world example. My customer who I built two 64-bit XP computers for: Her son's computer worked fine with his old iPod. She bought him a brand new version last Christmas and it wouldn't connect to his 64-bit Windows XP even though the old one worked. Apple's website even said it didn't work under 64-bit, and many users in forums had the same experience.
Instead of dual-booting, though, I just installed virtual computer software under 64-bit and had the guest run 32-bit and the new iPod worked just fine with that.
as i understand it, apple is being stubborn and refuses to make them 64bit compatible.
same with quicktime, which also wont work on a 64bit system.
Shouldn't surprise me, I guess. I wonder why this guy's older iPod worked just fine in 64-bit, though?
they know they can get away with something like that, causes stress and people will spend money to get it fixed (or try)...rock vista x64, its great! All my software and what not i have no issues at all!
The 64-bit OS for the most part is pretty reliable. It is just on some occasions that something doesn't work.
64bit for the enterprise environment (e.g. this I use @work)
32bit for home computing and for most of us tech warriors - greater driver and apps compatibility and more programs available for it for the moment
Well, basically, some applications won't work on 64 bit systems. The 64 bit systems are a bit faster, though. I'd recommend 64 bit for gaming and enterprise systems.
32 bit for home systems