XP Pro.....64bit or 32bit

Rex_Mundi

Does anyone out there use XP Pro 64bit? I'm going to order XP Pro for the new machine I'm building, and I'm 50/50 on what choice to make.

From what I've read, 64bit is much better for larger files/more complicated programs, but I'm wondering about compatability with presently available hardware and software. The components I'm putting in the new machine should be OK, but I don't want to find that I can't run some of my older software.

Any views

wolfman

I've tried switching twice and always reverted back Things haven't definitely moved on since new year when I last tried.

- Nod32 is available in 64-bit version, so is AVG. That's av sorted.
- I couldn't find a 64-bit firewall I liked though (I use Kerio).
- At the time Daemon Tools wasn't ready either, although they do now have a 64-bit version.

- I use Sql Server 2005 Developer, I've yet to check if it'd be ok with XP64, so that's another reason. Same applies to Visual Studio 2005. I think they are both compatible with both versions of XP, so shouldn't be a problem.

Apart from that most drivers, etc... should be available. Definitely go and download all the drivers, apps you want to use before switching though, to make sure they are all available.

Rex_Mundi

Cheers......

The reason I'm so undecided is because I believe that as 64bit gets more popular, it will 'future proof' more than just using the normal XP Pro.

I've decided now to go with a dual core CPU and feel that XP 64bit could hold the edge over 32bit.

I've got a few hours left to make a decision. I'm going to order all the components with the OS this evening for Saturday delivery.

Poppycat

I am considering myself ater this year a AMD 64 dual core, and may go on to using xp 64 version or the new MS software if it still due to come on back end of the year.

I think 64 bit is the way to go though.

thewizard

By choosing a 32 bit CPU you will have to upgrade again to make full use of Windows Vista set to be released December 1st.

wolfman

Yeah, maybe just bite the bullet and get the 64 bit version. It was very nice, and did feel fractionally quicker. You'll be able to take advantage of your cpu more too over time.

Also if there is anything you need that hasn't got a 64-bit version, it won't be long until they do with Vista due out at the end of the year. Most software houses will want to get a 64-bit version out before then.

Wow, git, Xp 64 and dual core. Should be a nice system.

Rex_Mundi

thewizard wrote:

By choosing a 32 bit CPU you will have to upgrade again to make full use of Windows Vista set to be released December 1st.

Untill MS have found and sorted out the first major batch of security holes in Vista, I won't even consider it.

MS have a history of releasing products, then finding faults. I remember XP was released and billed as the 'most secure OS yet'. I also remember the panic about 3 months later when they urged all XP users to download SP1.

Now XP has been out a while, they seem to have sorted most of the problems with it. I think XP now is not a bad OS compared to the version they released.

wolfman

thewizard wrote:

By choosing a 32 bit CPU you will have to upgrade again to make full use of Windows Vista set to be released December 1st.

I thought there was a 32-bit version of Vista?

Also, it's always worth sitting back after a release. Wait 3-4 months at least, or until SP1 comes out.

Poppycat

I usually use Intel chips but I read recently the P4 have lost a lot of ground over the AMD's. My nextdoor neigbour has a AMD dual core unsure if its 64/32 but its certainly fast, very jealous. I still got my 3 years old P4 2.4@3ghz.

thewizard

Rex_Mundi wrote:

Untill MS have found and sorted out the first major batch of security holes in Vista, I won't even consider it.

MS have a history of releasing products, then finding faults. I remember XP was released and billed as the 'most secure OS yet'. I also remember the panic about 3 months later when they urged all XP users to download SP1.

Now XP has been out a while, they seem to have sorted most of the problems with it. I think XP now is not a bad OS compared to the version they released.

Windows Vista has been delayed at least twice now to give them extra time to sort glitches out, I for one will be getting it gets released.

wolfman

Poppycat wrote:

I usually use Intel chips but I read recently the P4 have lost a lot of ground over the AMD's. My nextdoor neigbour has a AMD dual core unsure if its 64/32 but its certainly fast, very jealous. I still got my 3 years old P4 2.4@3ghz.

Yep, the Athlon64 is a brilliant piece of work by AMD. I switched from an Intel (Prescott) last year and haven't even glanced back. When my parents and brother choose to upgrade I'll be pushing for them to get Athlon64's too. I'll probably be upgrading to a dual core Athlon next year.

AMD won't be changing hugely though this year according to their roadmap, whereas Intel have their new "Conroe" chip out, and after that quad-core won't be far off (this time next year).