Slashdot Mirror
64-bit Windows XP Tested And Reviewed
sebFlyte writes "64-bit Windows is nearly here, despite Microsoft quietly dropping support (and plans for it) for the Itanium on XP ... Windows XP for x64 RC1 has been tested, seemingly fairly thoroughly, and actually looks like a stable OS."
what you all mean. My Windows Server 2003 desktop (YES I USE IT AS A DESKTOP!) is perfectly stable and has yet to give me one single hiccup. Granted, I'm not much of a gamer, but this setup seems to be working like a dream for me.
if 64-bit will be present in Windows Longhorn
If you're interested, here's a good discussion on what 64-bit Longhorn will look like.
Sigs cause cancer.
"Windows XP Professional x64 will be priced at the same level as the 32-bit version of Windows XP Pro, Microsoft said in a statement, and the three versions of Windows Server 2003 x64 will come with price tags similar to their 32-bit Standard, Enterprise, and Datacenter cousins." -informationweek.com
It's still Beta, and Microsoft has been offering it up for download for awhile now. The article even points you to the download page.
Bugs are just features that have been fixed.
You must have smoked some serious shit, man...
32bit drivers on a 64bit OS is a big NO-NO, even for FOSS...
It's not possible.
how long until
Also maybe you havent noticed, many of the graphics for microsoft are either bill gates dressed as a borg or a windows logo cracked, if you want unbiased go to npr or fox even.
Let me get this straight. First, you say that WinXP 64 won't run your legacy DOS/Win3.1 applications, and then you say that these limitations don't exist for 64-bit Linux? But since when did 16-bit DOS or Windows 3.1 applications run under Linux without an emulator? Sure Wine will run 16-bit DOS and Windows 3.1 applications on Linux. But guess what? Wine is also available for Windows. As for the new driver model, I believe they changed it to increase security, stability, and the ease with which developers can create drivers. It's a good thing that they changed it, not a bad one. That does mean that a lot of old hardware won't be supported, and that that good drivers won't exist for other more modern pieces of hardware until the hardware vendors release them. But for one, Windows XP 64 was made for modern hardware, not old machines, and the shortage of some drivers is only temporary. So sure, you're stuck with using a limited array of hardware to start out with, but Linux still suffers from the same problem. There's unfortunately still a lot of Linux unfriendly hardware out there. All in all, I think you are being hypocritical, just for the sake of bashing MS. If you're going to bash them, at least do so with some solid facts. You're making the rest of us look bad.
Now, I'm not one who normally defends Microsoft products, nor do I usually respond to trolls, but here goes:
Windows XP 64-bit edition has some major limitations. First, it uses a new driver model that means that all of the 32-bit drivers for your existing hardware will not work with the new Windows.
Given that almost all hardware manufacturers target Windows, I doubt this will be a problem for long for currently-supported hardware.
Second, it has no support implemented for legacy 16-bit DOS or Windows apps which will therefore not run on it. The x86-64 cpus have support for running 16-bit software but Micrsoft chose not to enable it.
Credit to Microsoft for finally taking the plunge and not supporting obsolete code. Nobody *has* to use 64-bit Windows, and frankly, using a 64-bit box to run 16-bit software is... a waste. Legacy support has bitten Microsoft in the ass more than a few times when it came to security problems with Windows. Besides, if you need to, you can always run old code using a product like VMware, as well.
These limitations don't exist for the 64-bit Linux versions.
This might be because the Linux kernel never "supported" 16-bit DOS or Windows apps by itself. (In fact, the Linux kernel can't run any 16-bit programs by itself, you needed a program like dosemu.)
Nice troll.
Microsoft ruled the 32-bit desktop but the 64-bit desktop should belong to Linux.
That may turn out to be true, but not for any reason you listed.
"Alcohol, Tobacco, Firearms, and Explosives" should be a convenience store, not a government agency.
And now the Alpha is dead.
Post tenebras lux. Post fenestras tux.
the pagefile/swap is limited to terabytes, ram is limited to gigabytes
Seems kind of funny after the whole NT on Alpha death microsoft induced. Now this should be the final blow (thankfully) for the UnObtanium.
Compaq purchased DEC, and halted the Windows2000 production agreement with Microsoft. Microsoft regretably pulled support from the Alpha in RC1 of Windows2000.
So peeps can thank Compaq for killing the Alpha, not Microsoft.
From Redhat's release notes for the update 2 to RHEL3.
See for yourself:
Redhat.
Microsoft always makes such a big deal about backwards compatibility, and introducing ugly hacks to accomodate misbehaved programs. And on the other hand, they drop 16-bit support. I wouldn't mind if they used an emulator to run the stuff and the performance on 16-bit programs was 20x lower.
If I may, there's something that should be pointed out to you and the OP: the AMD64 specification does not include a 16bit mode when running in 64bit mode. The two 64bit modes available are "pure"(which is literally pure 64bit mode) and "compatibility" which lets the processor run in 64bit mode while being able to run specific threads in 32bit mode, hence allowing 32bit programs to run with almost no performance hit, save some DLL Hell from needing the 32bit DLLs. Compatibility mode doesn't support 16bit threads however(you must be running pure 32bit mode to run 16bit threads), so there are two points I'd like to make: 1) It's not MS's fault that there isn't 16bit support, this is a hardware limitation, as they'd need a full emulator to get any sort of 16 bit support. And 2) AMD deserves the credit for killing 16bit, not MS.
The nVidia video card driver that came with the OS install was buggy. 2D support worked just fine but 3D errors made games unplayable until I updated to the latest driver. Updating the driver fixed the problems and games now look identical, whether I'm running XP or XP-64.
The XP-64 installer will issue a warning against installing it beside a regular XP install, but it will offer to upgrade. I chose to do a side-by-side install and haven't had any problems. XP-64 uses spearate "Program Files" and "Program Files (x86)" directories. It puts 64-bit apps in the former and 32-bit ones in the latter. It's a bit annoying but is manageable. My Program Files directory now has a combination of my 32-bit apps installed there originally on XP, plus the few 64-bit ones that come with XP-64.
Hardware-wise, you'll also find that installing the CPU and heat sink/fan is much better than with older Athlons. With the Socket 754 setup, the entire top of the CPU unit is metallic, creating a much larger area of contact between it and the heat sink, and the heat sink has a much larger patch of thermal paste preapplied. The new mounting bracket can be operated with fingers only and even if the heat sink could be put on backwards it would no longer make a difference. My Athlon64 3200+ runs at about 35 degrees Centigrade when idle, much cooler than the old Athlon 3200+..
Fun with Anagarams! LADS HOST, SHALT DOS. HAS DOLTS. AD SLOTHS, HATS SOLD. ASS HO, LTD.
Sorry but this wasn't a troll although I admit it does sound that way. The problem is that Microsoft did not support running any 16-bit software on the x86-64 machines even though the hardware is physically capable of running 16-bit software in a 16-bit compatibility submode while in the 'long' mode. Microsoft did support the 32-bit compatibility sub-mode but even that is not real good. Emulators that access the hardware (for performance reasons) such as VPC will not be able to use the 16-bit capability because it has not been supported by Microsoft. To run 16-bit software, the Microsoft Virtual PC would have to emulate the 16-bit capability in software and it does not have that ability. Unless Microsoft adds 16-bit emulation to Virtual PC or adds 16-bit support to their 64-bit OS, there will be no DOS, Win9x, or Win ME running under Virtual PC on 64-bit Windows since all of those offer 16-bit support as a part of the OS. Linux and BeOS, however, do support running 16-bit software on the 64-bit software when it is in long mode so perhaps a future linux 64-bit virtual pc will be able to support running Windows 9x. Now *that* would be ironic.
Why does this even matter? Well, there is a lot of 32-bit Windows software that uses 16-bit installers, for one example. Obviously none of that will install on 64-bit Windows. More importantly, enterprise sites use a lot of legacy software developed over many years that they will not just drop. Linux actually offers a better migration path to move to 64-bit while supporting legacy software than Windows does.
The driver situation is also a problem. Yes, new hardware will have 64-bit drivers but most existing hardware will not, especially peripherals.