Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

  • Thread starter Thread starter Zootal
  • Start date Start date
Z

Zootal

Guest
Due to compability issues and the pain it is causing, I'm seriously
considering abandoning XP64 and going back to XP32. Question - how much of a
performance difference is there between the two? How much faster is XP64?
And, if I switch back to XP32, what good does it do to have a 64bit cpu?
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.

When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
functinality on your CPU is ever used.

Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.

--
Chuck Walbourn
SDE, XNA Developer Connection

This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no rights.
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

The biggest pain is OpenGL, and it seems that Ati points the finger at
Microsoft who points the finger at nVidia....no one wants to claim
responsibility. OpenGL comes with windows, so you can't just reinstall it or
upgrade it. And my research so far indicates that OpenGL with XP64 has
issues - in some cases serious issues. Basic opengl functions appear to be
broken, and so far I've not found a reason why.

"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
> GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
> more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
> 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>
> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>
> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards, and
it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL, I
have to disable the second display adaptor.

And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc client
won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I think I
might be able to live with this now.


"Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using < 2
> GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you have
> more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all with a
> 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>
> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>
> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>
> --
> Chuck Walbourn
> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>
> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
> rights.
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

I wasn't aware of any issues in XPx64 - apparently, there are questions
about OpenGL and Vista. I don't remember all of this any longer, but the guy
who does the ReallySlickScreensavers seem to have a point when he says that
driver issues 'MAY' prevent setting up multiple framebuffers - so, using one
card with dual output could work (if the driver allows it).

I recommend having a look at:

http://www.reallyslick.com/

He may not have an anser to every possible question, but he does seem to
know what he's doing!


Tony. . .


"Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23BgcA1UOIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
>some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards,
>and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL,
>I have to disable the second display adaptor.
>
> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
> think I might be able to live with this now.
>
>
> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
>> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
>> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>>
>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>>
>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Walbourn
>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is to
create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run them
there.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
news:%23BgcA1UOIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even be
>some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia cards,
>and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with OpenGL,
>I have to disable the second display adaptor.
>
> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
> think I might be able to live with this now.
>
>
> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
> news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
>> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
>> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>>
>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>>
>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>>
>> --
>> Chuck Walbourn
>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>
>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>> rights.
>>
>
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

I can live without 16 bit apps - there aren't many left, and I seldom use
them. The pain right now is the lack of availability of drivers for certain
apps - my dvd2vhs usb capture box flat won't work - no drivers for xp64.
Their tech support said to take it back for refund or find a 32 bit box for
it. And in the process of installing it, it somehow disabled audio hardare
buffering and now half of my apps that use sound have no sound - go figure?
Uninstall, reinstall sound drivers, reinstall directx - no joy. I ended up
booting to Linux and restoring from the backup I made right after I
installed and patched it. In the end this was faster then trying to fix the
broken sound.

SecureRemote checkpoint - no xp64 support.
My tv tuner cards - neither have xp6 drivers.
My old Canon scanner - no xp64 support.
16 bit apps - as you say, they don't work, but I did not expect them to so
this isn't a real issue.

XP64 reminds me of what I went through when I tried to upgrade from Win98 to
Win2000. There seems to be limited hardware and software support, and it
does not seem to be well suited to a home environment where you want to use
a wide variety of hardware or software. The lack of checkpoint support is
suprising - at work we have hundreds of installations of the client, and
something like this would probably cause them to not use XP64 because of
this.

So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't work
with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon says no
xp64 support - go and buy a new one.

"Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
news:100A4182-A968-41CF-A248-FCB36674846C@microsoft.com...
> No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
> question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
> applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is
> to create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run
> them there.
>
> --
> Charlie.
> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>
>
> "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:%23BgcA1UOIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
>>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even
>>be some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia
>>cards, and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something with
>>OpenGL, I have to disable the second display adaptor.
>>
>> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
>> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
>> think I might be able to live with this now.
>>
>>
>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>> news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using <
>>> 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
>>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it all
>>> with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>>>
>>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
>>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>>>
>>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
>>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
>>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>>>
>>> --
>>> Chuck Walbourn
>>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>>
>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>> rights.
>>>
>>
>>
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

You won't solve the hardware issues by going in the back door, no. Sorry.

--
Charlie.
http://msmvps.com/xperts64
http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel


"Zootal" <Don't send me any freaking spam at zootal dot com remove the don't
send me any freaking spam> wrote in message
news:equ2XncOIHA.5860@TK2MSFTNGP04.phx.gbl...
>I can live without 16 bit apps - there aren't many left, and I seldom use
>them. The pain right now is the lack of availability of drivers for certain
>apps - my dvd2vhs usb capture box flat won't work - no drivers for xp64.
>Their tech support said to take it back for refund or find a 32 bit box for
>it. And in the process of installing it, it somehow disabled audio hardare
>buffering and now half of my apps that use sound have no sound - go figure?
>Uninstall, reinstall sound drivers, reinstall directx - no joy. I ended up
>booting to Linux and restoring from the backup I made right after I
>installed and patched it. In the end this was faster then trying to fix the
>broken sound.
>
> SecureRemote checkpoint - no xp64 support.
> My tv tuner cards - neither have xp6 drivers.
> My old Canon scanner - no xp64 support.
> 16 bit apps - as you say, they don't work, but I did not expect them to so
> this isn't a real issue.
>
> XP64 reminds me of what I went through when I tried to upgrade from Win98
> to Win2000. There seems to be limited hardware and software support, and
> it does not seem to be well suited to a home environment where you want to
> use a wide variety of hardware or software. The lack of checkpoint support
> is suprising - at work we have hundreds of installations of the client,
> and something like this would probably cause them to not use XP64 because
> of this.
>
> So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
> hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't
> work with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon
> says no xp64 support - go and buy a new one.
>
> "Charlie Russel - MVP" <charlie@mvKILLALLSPAMMERSps.org> wrote in message
> news:100A4182-A968-41CF-A248-FCB36674846C@microsoft.com...
>> No help on the OpenGL, I'm afraid, but I can answer your 16 bit apps
>> question. No, they don't work. There is NO support for any 16 bit
>> applications in any 64bit version of Windows. Your best bet for those is
>> to create a Virtual Machine you can run something like Win98 in and run
>> them there.
>>
>> --
>> Charlie.
>> http://msmvps.com/xperts64
>> http://mvp.support.microsoft.com/profile/charlie.russel
>>
>>
>> "Zootal" <msnews@zootal.nospam.com> wrote in message
>> news:%23BgcA1UOIHA.2208@TK2MSFTNGP06.phx.gbl...
>>>I got the OpenGL finally figured out. For some odd reason, you can't have
>>>two ATI cards in the same box - it confuses OpenGL. Weird. It might even
>>>be some weird motherboard dependency. In my old box I had two nVidia
>>>cards, and it worked find. Go figure. So, when I want to do something
>>>with OpenGL, I have to disable the second display adaptor.
>>>
>>> And I have a few odd 16 bit apps that don't work at all. Hmm...my vnc
>>> client won't load....fixing the OpenGL made most of the pain go away, I
>>> think I might be able to live with this now.
>>>
>>>
>>> "Chuck Walbourn [MSFT]" <chuckw@online.microsoft.com> wrote in message
>>> news:ORcHxsTOIHA.1208@TK2MSFTNGP05.phx.gbl...
>>>> As with most things, the answer is "it depends". If you are only using
>>>> < 2 GB of RAM at any given time, then it doesn't matter so much. If you
>>>> have more than 3 GB of physical RAM in the machine, you can't use it
>>>> all with a 32-bit version of the OS no matter what you do.
>>>>
>>>> When running an 32-bit X86 version of the OS, none of the 64-bit X64
>>>> functinality on your CPU is ever used.
>>>>
>>>> Have you tried contacting the supplier of your software that is causing
>>>> difficulty and asking when they will be fixing their X64 issues? Until
>>>> customers ask for it, companies tend to try to ignore change.
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Chuck Walbourn
>>>> SDE, XNA Developer Connection
>>>>
>>>> This posting is provided "AS IS" with no warranties, and confers no
>>>> rights.
>>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>
>
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

On Dec 7, 4:59 pm, "Zootal" <msn...@zootal.nospam.com> wrote:
> Due to compability issues and the pain it is causing, I'm seriously
> considering abandoning XP64 and going back to XP32. Question - how much of a
> performance difference is there between the two? How much faster is XP64?
> And, if I switch back to XP32, what good does it do to have a 64bit cpu?

In 64-bit applications, XP64 is infinity times faster than XP32.

> So, question - can I run Win98 in a virutal machine, and will it have
> hardware access? Will I be able to install hardware drivers that don't work
> with XP64? It would be nice if I could get my scanner to work. Canon says no
> xp64 support - go and buy a new one.

Virtual machines are just that - Virtual. They have their own BIOS,
their own video card, their own sound chips, their own network cards,
everything. "Hardware access" is limited to pass-through option
devices such as network, CD/DVD drives, serial/parallel, and maybe
USB. The software I use, Virtualbox, will allow USB access but there
are reports of some devices not liking the pass-through setup. Very
timing-sensitive things are iffy at best, Virtualbox for instance does
not even officially support writing to CDs.

I wouldn't recommend Win98 for that, unless your devices are so old
that Win98 drivers exist and are usable. Any virtualization software
today can easily handle XP (most new ones can handle Vista)
 
Re: Performance differences between xp32 and xp64

> Virtual machines are just that - Virtual. They have their own BIOS,
> their own video card, their own sound chips, their own network cards,
> everything. "Hardware access" is limited to pass-through option
> devices such as network, CD/DVD drives, serial/parallel, and maybe
> USB. The software I use, Virtualbox, will allow USB access but there
> are reports of some devices not liking the pass-through setup. Very
> timing-sensitive things are iffy at best, Virtualbox for instance does
> not even officially support writing to CDs.
>
> I wouldn't recommend Win98 for that, unless your devices are so old
> that Win98 drivers exist and are usable. Any virtualization software
> today can easily handle XP (most new ones can handle Vista)


Thanks for the info, everyone. The reason I would have used Win98 is because
I don't have any spare WinXP licenses, and I have a half dozen Win98
licenses laying around. I'm playing with installing Win2000 on a second
partition (because I have an extra Win2000 license) to see if that will let
me run the things that XP64 won't support.
 
Back
Top