XP64 or Vista64 ?

I'm considering a "triple" boot system:
1) XP SP3 32bit
2) Linux
3) 64 bit OS

I'm not yet sure if I should got Vista, and was wondering how good is WINdows XP 64 bit? If anyone tried it. Also, how compatible is Vista64 with current gen 32 bit software, games, apps ?

My bro says, "I didn't see any change. Firefox was a bit faster though. Even Zbrush and similar 3d apps were the same." for 64bit XP.

At the time I tested it, which is a very long time ago, there were a lot of compability issues but then they updated it and solved the problem. I'm not using it anymore though.

_33, right now there's pretty much only one difference between a 64-bit OS and a "standard" 32-bit OS. A 32-bit OS allows up to 4 GigaBytes (4,294,967,296 Bytes) of RAM. Any extra RAM is useless. However, a 64-bit OS allows up to an incredible 18 QuintaBytes, or 18,446,744,073,709,551,616 Bytes of RAM.

That's 16,777,216 GB, in case you're wondering. @_@

64-Bit is not really about performance, it's about being able to address a ton of memory. Only memory hungry apps will perform better on a 64-Bit system, and there are not many of those on the market. To close the circle, it also only makes sense to install a 64-Bit Windows operating system if you have more than 3 GB of RAM in your system (32-Bit Windows only addresses a maximum of 3.3 GB RAM).

I think getting suitable drivers for the 64-Bit systems should still be the biggest problem, not the application compatibility.

In any case, I wouldn't invest in the past. Go for 64-Bit Vista.

True, 64bit Vista is probably a better option than hanging on XP, even if it is a 64 bit XP. But I am totally against the fact that 64bit apps won't benefit by the wider and more registers. It has been proven that most of the apps use a lot of register mov instructions because there are too little register on a 32bit x86 processors. So, good compilers that properly optimizes code will take advantage of the bigger register base, often giving apps that need them up to 30% speed increase average on the 64bit version.

http://www.pcstats.com/articleview.cfm?articleid=1665&page=6

EDIT: If the code is not compiled to take advantage of the 64bit features of the processor, then of course there are no performance benefits.

I thought 64 Bit processors could process 64 bits at a time, rather than 32, making them twice as quick on apps that support it?

http://www.scribd.com/doc/363677/Benchmarks-AMD64-in-32bit-mode-vs-64bit-mode-Ubuntu

More benches, on Linux.


It's not as simple as that :P Register to memory instructions are twice as fast on 32bit, for example, because they shuffle only 32bit data in and out instead of 64bit. There are a couple of occasions where 64bit is absolutely not the best way to go.

Benchmarks are always interesting to read, but eventually only real world application behavior really matters. CryTek had a 64-Bit patch for FarCry, but it didn't make any difference in performance. But it will be interesting to see how 64-Bit PhotoShop will behave - that's an application domain where that technology -will- make a real difference.

Maybe Mark Sibly will reconsider and create a 64-Bit version of BlitzMax (including multi-threading), then we will see how much of a difference it will make for us.

Actually Adam Novagen, the 64 bit processor doesn't have a 64bit addressing mode, but at 40 bit addressing mode.
http://www.theinquirer.net/en/inquirer/news/2004/07/13/intel-nocona-bug--points-way-to-amd64-origin

This translates into a theoretical 1 terabyte maximum ram on AMD64 architecture, but on some intel EM64T processor it translates into 64 gigs addressability (36bit address space).

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/64-bit

Nuts... I was kinda enjoying the prospect of QuintaByte systems. ^_^

Vista 64 has some extra security stuff (hardware Data Execution Protection, signed kernel-level drivers, for example) than XP 64.

One big catch with 64 bit is that there are many cards and peripherals out there that don't have 64 bit drivers yet... So make sure to check your printer, scanner, webcam, soundcard, video card, network card, motherboard, etc. all have drivers for the OS you are considering...

Depending on driver availability, you may not be able to run a specific OS unless you also replace any potentially affected components...

Vista. Driver support for 64bit XP is still atrocious, and support for XP is ending sooner rather than later. For a 64bit Windows, Vista is the only viable option.

I agree, x64 Vista is being well support by Microsoft and Hardware Vendor's; x64 XP is the unloved middle son that still has many problems that will probably never be fixed.

Unless you really need more than 3GB of memory though your probably best sticking with 32bit right now for a workstation OS, certainly I don't see anyone needing more than 3GB for gaming or pretty much anything else, although inevtiably that will change over time.

On big application servers the need is obvious and urgent as the 32 bit limitation really was a bind but that's only for stuff like Exchange, SQL, Citrix etc. However for the workstation this is not the case.

Darkheart

I've been using Vista x64 as my main OS for a while without issue. I'm on modern hardware though, so support is good.

I wouldn't say it's noticably quicker, but there is an argument for it being slightly more stable. I don't know how much of a factor that is, but I'm on the verge of upgrading to 4GB, so a 64-bit OS is essential.

I would advise going with vista64, xp64 is getting very little support.

XP64 will work fine but you are at the mercy of every hardware component in your pc. Does each and every one have a stable X64 Driver? That is the question you ask yourself.

Make sure you don't plan on changing that hardware either.