Windows XP Pro x64

Who did you ordered it from?

Right from Microsoft. Make sure you read all the info though. Upgrading to x64 effectivly replcases your licence for XP.

<A HREF="http://microsoft.productorder.com/clientx64/default.asp..." target="_new">Here</A> is the link.

Systems Running F@H:
AMD: [A64 3200+] [XP2800+ x2] [XP2400+]
Intel: [P4 2.8 x4] [P4 2.0] [P4 1.8] [P4 1.7] [P4 1.6 x2] [P4 1.4M] [Xeon 1.0] [Cel 1.0] [P3 ??]

When we don't hear from you for a few days while you're reloading Windows XP 32bit.. we'll know you got a $22 OS? 

You're brave.. I'll go to 64bit in about 8-12 months..

Oh hey... and thanks for taking one for bettering the world.. I don't need the headaches of beta testing that beast.  

Actually, I'm running x64 RC2 right now, and other that Norton AV 2003 not working (I installed Avast Anti-Virus) have had no problems with it.



Systems Running F@H:
AMD: [A64 3200+] [XP2800+ x2] [XP2400+]
Intel: [P4 2.8 x4] [P4 2.0] [P4 1.8] [P4 1.7] [P4 1.6 x2] [P4 1.4M] [Xeon 1.0] [Cel 1.0] [P3 ??]

Nice.. I need to get a second computer around before I install it. I have way too much needed stuff on my main computer that I use that I can't afford to not be with for a while.

You should throw out a new post giving your Pros and Cons on it.. if you feel like that's something you'd want to do.

I honestly haven't looked too much at 64 yet because I'm thinking it's going to be more of a server market right now than desktop.. maybe at home 64 will be good.. but I don't see the need in the majority of work markets that need that much power at the desktop level.

My thoughts are in a year or more it'll start to phase it's way in. But that's just my 2 cents.

But yeah, if you wouldn't mind.. you should toss out there some unbiased thoughts of it compared to regular XP. Everyone is raving how great and how much faster it is, but I tend to think those people can't really give a fair analysis of it.. maybe you could eh?

Riser

Anyone who says its "way faster" is full of [-peep-]. True, it does seem to load into windows faster, but thats about it.

Benchmarking my system with 3DMark05, XP Pro x64 gives me about 20 points more that 2000 Pro SP4.

Other than Norton Anti-Virus 2003 not working properly, I haven't had any problems with XP x64 RC2.

Systems Running F@H:
AMD: [A64 3200+] [XP2800+ x2] [XP2400+]
Intel: [P4 2.8 x4] [P4 2.0] [P4 1.8] [P4 1.7] [P4 1.6 x2] [P4 1.4M] [Xeon 1.0] [Cel 1.0] [P3 ??]

That's what I thought. If I go out, people want to start debating on how great 64 is. How much faster, better, etc.
My stance is that the technology still isn't there.. the software isn't there.. so I can't justify going out and buying all the latest and greatest to support 64. All new hardware to jump on new technology? nah.. too much money right now for something that in 6-12 months will probably change.
That and I'm waiting to see when this PCI Express stuff comes full circle.. Doesn't seem to be coming around as fast as newsletters made it sound. I keep telling people who are eager to jump to wait to see what hardware is coming around and what's changing because there's too much transistion right now.
64 is a good idea.. it's probably good to be using, but until there is a lot of 64 bit software out there.. no one really knows how well it's going to work. (Aside from UT2k3 coming out in 64 bit. But let's see it at full scale, all software being 64 bit.)

I think I'm correct in that last statement eh?

The AMD 64 is not just a 64 bits CPU.. it is a very efficient CPU for 32 bits as well, and will give a boost for any apps running now. It is a good reason to upgrade, if you need more 32 bits power now..with the added bonus that future 64 bits will run on it anyway.

<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>

I would tend to agree with you on the software end of things. Right now, there is very little or no software that makes use of the 64 bit hardware.

Having said that, software, games specifically, do run faster on a 64 bit platform than a 32 bit platform.

Systems Running F@H:
AMD: [A64 3200+] [XP2800+ x2] [XP2400+]
Intel: [P4 2.8 x4] [P4 2.0] [P4 1.8] [P4 1.7] [P4 1.6 x2] [P4 1.4M] [Xeon 1.0] [Cel 1.0] [P3 ??]

Let's put this in simple perspective.. I personally haven't used a 64 bit computer yet..

But if you were working on 2 identical computers, one 32 the other 64..

On a scale of 1 to 100.. how much better would you say the performance was? 10? 30? 50?
1 being minimal, 100 being far better performance.

My guess would be between 10-15%? That is, if all software was 32 as is today.

I have a 64 bit system and I didn't get it expecting more performance. I got it because the difference in price between an Athlon XP and an Athlon 64 was very little and the mobos for this chips had more features. I might not be using my processor regarding the 64bits but since it's a feature I got for very little money is no big deal, and if 64bits apps get better in my system's life I can upgrade my OS without changing parts.

I had a mobile barton running at 2.4GHz.. in 32 bits. I noticed a boost when I got my AMD64 3000+, in the same 32 bits apps I was running on my mobile 2500+. I did upgrade not because of the 64 bits side of the CPU, but because it would allow me to finally have a quiet powerfull stable computer instead of an overclocked noisy one. I rather spend more for hardware than fancy cooler.. but it is me. Intel is not an option for me. At least, not yet. I've tried some and they did not impress me. Yes, they render fast.. but what about the rest?

My point is, if you need more power, waiting to upgrade because there is not enough 64 bits apps is not justified because of they are better at 32 bits apps than older CPU. And they can run 64 bits if you have to..

to have a 64 bits CPU running 64 bits, you need 64 bits OS, apps, game.. otherwise, they are just like any other 32 bits CPU. But better one ..

So I would say that even if I got a 15% performance gain over my last setup, the 80% noise drop really worth it.

<font color=red>Sig space for rent. make your offer.</font color=red>