There are 2 versions of Internet Explorer in 64 bit windows. One is the 32 bit version that runs in WOW the other is a native 64 bit version. The 32 bit version is the default (i.e. if you click start:run:internet it will be the 32 bit version), and 32 bit plugins, including flash, work in it. Sorry?
There are tons of drivers, and tons more are in the pipeline. Hardware vendors have had almost 2 years to work on their drivers, so if you have something that doesn't work bug the vendor!
A 64 bit number much more than just double a 32 bit... oh wait, nevermind Actually I've found it to be quite stable. It took a little while for the 64 bit drivers for my video & audio cards to catch up, but it is solid now.
I install random freeware & shareware applications on my x64 all the time. The only ones that haven't worked are ones that have drivers built in (like a CD burning program I found wouldn't install), or programs that hack in to the system to do really wacky things like change how system wide menus work and stuff. Other than those type of apps I have had no problems. I don't know what apps the other poster is trying if only 2 out of his entire collection work...
SQL running on an x64 is awesome. The increased capabilities of the OS (performance, memory, I/O, etc) give it a serious boost. Some of the demos show literally a 5x improvement in DB perf (query response time, number of connected users, etc).
Same holds true in the web space. The improvements to memory, etc, let IIS serve pages way more effeciently - meaning the server responds faster, can serve more simultaneous pages, recovers from request surges, etc, way better than a 32-bit server. ASP.NET web applications get great benefits in scalability too.
Basically the thing to take away is that it isn't just '64-bit native' server apps that take advantage of an x64, it is virtually any server app. Even a simple server app could get a boost just from the system's ability to handle more simultaneous TCP/IP connections.
And I love it when 'anonymous cowards' try to reply. My post clearly states 'you can find perf benefits from the x64 edition's overall improved performance'. I did not say that 100% of the time you were going to get a 5x perf boost. I said that you can find perf benefits, and it is true. Not every single benchmark for every single 32-bit app is going to show huge perf improvements, but you can find benchmarks of real-world scenarios were the improved stability and performance of the overall system does provide benefits to 32-bit apps, regardless of the fact that it is running in WoW.
That is inaccurate information. I've been running VS.NET just fine on my x64 box for a very long time. I don't even have a 32 bit client machine for development use at all anymore. (I've got an old Tablet PC that I test on to make sure my apps work fine on both 32 and 64 bit native systems, but it is to slow for dev use)
I must be missing something... I don't get why that was modded 'funny'.
Anyway, Intel's "Extended Memory 64 Technology" (EM64T) is compatible tech. They have Pentium 4 w/ EM64T and Xeon w/ EM64T processors that will run Win XP x64 Edition (and the Server 2003 x64 Editions) just fine.
Windows XP x64 Edition will run on both AMD's "AMD64" and Intel's "EM64T" chips. x86-64 is the same thing too, it was one of the earliest names that AMD gave to its technology.
My question is how Microsoft will handle dual core processors?
When the system decides how many procs the particular OS will activate it counts by socket, not be core. A dual core proc only takes up one physical socket on the motherboard, so even though it is technically 2 it is only counted as 1.
Unfortunetly you can't just upgrade from 32 to 64 bit. The x64 OS is a 'full' install, and you should do it on a partition that does not already have a 32-bit OS installed on it (otherwise weird things can go on with your Program Files & some other system folders).
What you can do to make the transition much more seamless is to use the File & Settings Transfer Wizard that is included on the x64 CD (it is a newer version than what shipped with 32-bit XP, so make sure you use this updated one). It will pack all your (surprise) files & settings up and then you can import them to your new x64 install.
As for 'will 64 break most/all of my 32 bit apps?' - no. Pretty much all of your 32 bit apps will still be able to run - and often will run faster. The main exceptions are apps that have drivers along with them, which will need to have an update provided by the company that wrote the app to include a 64-bit driver.
I don't see 64-bit games anytime soon because other than FPS games, most games do not need the newest, greatest hardware.
Far Cry has an x64 version, as do Doom 3 & some other games that have been announced. Even if you play a 32bit version of a game you can find perf benefits from the x64 edition's overall improved performance characteristics.
Hmm, you don't seem to understand how money works. $250 is *more* than $40. If $40 is too much to pay for something, then $250 is way too much.
Hmm, you don't seem to understand how money works. $250 PSP + $40 WiFi detector is *more* than $250 PSP that has a WiFi detector program. If $250 accomplishes the task, then $290 is way to much.
For you, probably nothing. For a larger business it would be worth it, as it comes with "Apple style" GUI tools to configure everything, and a lot of stuff built-in.
Assuming you have a familiarity with Linux, or any command line really, you can get yourself up and running with a standard OS X 'client' based machine. I'd suggest installing Webmin on your box to help configure things. I've got Webmin running on two of my OS X machines and it makes configuration really simple by adding web-based remote administration to many many tasks (Apache, BIND, Squid, Webalizer, remote access to the file system, etc) while still giving you the ability to edit the raw config files if you want.
You may also want to install Fink to help you get some of the services that are not installed by default in there. (For example Apache is in the OS X client, it just happens to call it "Personal Web Sharing" in the GUI, but their is no POP3 server built in)
To whoever moderated that message as 'flamebait': Uhh, what? There was nothing inflammatory in there. It was entirely serious.
Windows 2003 systems have achieved incredibly high availability numbers, and 2003 SP1 is on track to be even better.
High quality hardware is not going to have the same amount of problems as low quality hardware. When hardware dies you lose uptime (unless it is a hot swappable component, but then that implies you bought a good base system to begin with). Cheap power supplies fail, knock off RAM fails, and all of this is known even to the Linux crowd it isn't some "Microsoft spin." Check any of the dozens of good hardware review sites out there - that is what they are there for.
Along with good hardware goes good software. Quality hardware vendors are more likely to have rock solid drivers & utilities than some random provider. Same with applications. If you are setting up a mission critical server with a goal of huge uptime, then you need to research the applications you buy. Buy an app that has known memory leaks, known crashing bugs, etc and you are more likely to have problems.
Maintenance and change management procedures play a large role in keeping your system's uptime high as well. If you don't ever check to make sure the hardware is still working good (hard drives can warn you before they fail for example), that you back systems are functional, that your event logs aren't filled with errors warning of hardware problems, then you will not be able to resolve the problem until your machine goes down - and at that point your uptime is toast. Same goes with software maintenance. If you don't have a solid plan in place for determining the validity of software changes (from a 'simple' settings tweak to a full service pack install) you can lose uptime. If you install every single random patch as it is released, rather than only picking the ones you need and applying them in a batch, you will lose uptime. If you decide to upgrade some application to the latest whiz-bang version when you either don't really need it, or haven't tested it, you run the risk of losing uptime.
These aren't things that only affect Microsoft either. Linux, Mac OS X, and all the others are susceptible to these various problems as well. Best practices for high uptime/availability has nothing to do with a "pro-MS, anti-FOSS" argument.
No, adding extra bits doesn't make it more stable. The continued development process makes it more stable.
Windows XP (the original 32-bit one) is a 5.1 versioned code base, as are the service packs that go with it. Windows XP x64 Edition is being built out of the same code base that Server 2003 was built out of, which makes it a 5.2 versioned code base (along with Server 2003 SP1, and Server 2003 x64 Editions).
BTW, all of the XPSP2 features are in this release candidate already.
Actually Windows XP x64 Edition is based on the Server 2003 SP1 code base (and as indicated in a number of articles already, the Server 2003 SP1, Server 2003 x64 Edition, and XP Pro x64 Edition releases are all tied together).
I can't begin to think of an explanation on why you have problems with XP Home and not XP Pro. Your assumption that there is something fundamentally different between the two versions that would make one 'stable' and the other 'crap' is wrong. If you look at the version number information on the two you will find that they are the same code base - in the same way that Standard Server and Datacenter Server are brothers.
If I were forced to guess why you have better luck with 2000 than XP, I would guess 3rd party drivers.
The minimum system requirements are really low. I would be willing to be that they are lower than what anyone configuring a system with an x64 processor would purchase. Why someone would want to buy a brand new 64-bit-capable computer and then drop 128 megs of ram in to it I don't know... That said, we do test on all sorts of different configurations.
Yea, I think so. I know you'll get that error if you try to run, for example, a Pocket PC executable on your desktop, and I imagine we would just have used the same code to handle all the other executable/architecture mismatches.
Slashdot Mirror
There are 2 versions of Internet Explorer in 64 bit windows. One is the 32 bit version that runs in WOW the other is a native 64 bit version. The 32 bit version is the default (i.e. if you click start:run:internet it will be the 32 bit version), and 32 bit plugins, including flash, work in it. Sorry?
There are tons of drivers, and tons more are in the pipeline. Hardware vendors have had almost 2 years to work on their drivers, so if you have something that doesn't work bug the vendor!
Well this XP Pro x64 has all the fixes (and then some) that were in XP SP2, so no need to wait or suffer.
A 64 bit number much more than just double a 32 bit... oh wait, nevermind
Actually I've found it to be quite stable. It took a little while for the 64 bit drivers for my video & audio cards to catch up, but it is solid now.
I install random freeware & shareware applications on my x64 all the time. The only ones that haven't worked are ones that have drivers built in (like a CD burning program I found wouldn't install), or programs that hack in to the system to do really wacky things like change how system wide menus work and stuff. Other than those type of apps I have had no problems. I don't know what apps the other poster is trying if only 2 out of his entire collection work...
SQL running on an x64 is awesome. The increased capabilities of the OS (performance, memory, I/O, etc) give it a serious boost. Some of the demos show literally a 5x improvement in DB perf (query response time, number of connected users, etc).
Same holds true in the web space. The improvements to memory, etc, let IIS serve pages way more effeciently - meaning the server responds faster, can serve more simultaneous pages, recovers from request surges, etc, way better than a 32-bit server. ASP.NET web applications get great benefits in scalability too.
Basically the thing to take away is that it isn't just '64-bit native' server apps that take advantage of an x64, it is virtually any server app. Even a simple server app could get a boost just from the system's ability to handle more simultaneous TCP/IP connections.
And I love it when 'anonymous cowards' try to reply. My post clearly states 'you can find perf benefits from the x64 edition's overall improved performance'. I did not say that 100% of the time you were going to get a 5x perf boost. I said that you can find perf benefits, and it is true. Not every single benchmark for every single 32-bit app is going to show huge perf improvements, but you can find benchmarks of real-world scenarios were the improved stability and performance of the overall system does provide benefits to 32-bit apps, regardless of the fact that it is running in WoW.
That is inaccurate information. I've been running VS.NET just fine on my x64 box for a very long time.
I don't even have a 32 bit client machine for development use at all anymore. (I've got an old Tablet PC that I test on to make sure my apps work fine on both 32 and 64 bit native systems, but it is to slow for dev use)
Yep, you can try out the XP Pro x64 Edition if you want a client.
Or if you are more interested in a server product you can try out the Server 2003 Enterprise x64 Edition.
I must be missing something... I don't get why that was modded 'funny'.
Anyway, Intel's "Extended Memory 64 Technology" (EM64T) is compatible tech. They have Pentium 4 w/ EM64T and Xeon w/ EM64T processors that will run Win XP x64 Edition (and the Server 2003 x64 Editions) just fine.
It spellchecks butter so fast it monkey types words caravan in to your games documents before you even candy know what you want to type ice cream!
Windows XP x64 Edition will run on both AMD's "AMD64" and Intel's "EM64T" chips. x86-64 is the same thing too, it was one of the earliest names that AMD gave to its technology.
When the system decides how many procs the particular OS will activate it counts by socket, not be core. A dual core proc only takes up one physical socket on the motherboard, so even though it is technically 2 it is only counted as 1.
Unfortunetly you can't just upgrade from 32 to 64 bit. The x64 OS is a 'full' install, and you should do it on a partition that does not already have a 32-bit OS installed on it (otherwise weird things can go on with your Program Files & some other system folders).
What you can do to make the transition much more seamless is to use the File & Settings Transfer Wizard that is included on the x64 CD (it is a newer version than what shipped with 32-bit XP, so make sure you use this updated one). It will pack all your (surprise) files & settings up and then you can import them to your new x64 install.
As for 'will 64 break most/all of my 32 bit apps?' - no. Pretty much all of your 32 bit apps will still be able to run - and often will run faster. The main exceptions are apps that have drivers along with them, which will need to have an update provided by the company that wrote the app to include a 64-bit driver.
Far Cry has an x64 version, as do Doom 3 & some other games that have been announced. Even if you play a 32bit version of a game you can find perf benefits from the x64 edition's overall improved performance characteristics.
Yes, I do - but do you?
I'd suggest you get a dictionary yourself.
Try this link for example: Dictionary.com says gifted can mean 'to present something as a gift to' or 'to endow with' and cites the American Heritage Dictionary of the English Language, Fourth Edition.
Windows Server 2003, released in March of 2003, supported Intel Itanium processors which are in fact 64-bit chips.
For you, probably nothing. For a larger business it would be worth it, as it comes with "Apple style" GUI tools to configure everything, and a lot of stuff built-in.
Assuming you have a familiarity with Linux, or any command line really, you can get yourself up and running with a standard OS X 'client' based machine. I'd suggest installing Webmin on your box to help configure things. I've got Webmin running on two of my OS X machines and it makes configuration really simple by adding web-based remote administration to many many tasks (Apache, BIND, Squid, Webalizer, remote access to the file system, etc) while still giving you the ability to edit the raw config files if you want.
You may also want to install Fink to help you get some of the services that are not installed by default in there. (For example Apache is in the OS X client, it just happens to call it "Personal Web Sharing" in the GUI, but their is no POP3 server built in)
To whoever moderated that message as 'flamebait': Uhh, what? There was nothing inflammatory in there. It was entirely serious.
Windows 2003 systems have achieved incredibly high availability numbers, and 2003 SP1 is on track to be even better.
High quality hardware is not going to have the same amount of problems as low quality hardware. When hardware dies you lose uptime (unless it is a hot swappable component, but then that implies you bought a good base system to begin with). Cheap power supplies fail, knock off RAM fails, and all of this is known even to the Linux crowd it isn't some "Microsoft spin." Check any of the dozens of good hardware review sites out there - that is what they are there for.
Along with good hardware goes good software. Quality hardware vendors are more likely to have rock solid drivers & utilities than some random provider. Same with applications. If you are setting up a mission critical server with a goal of huge uptime, then you need to research the applications you buy. Buy an app that has known memory leaks, known crashing bugs, etc and you are more likely to have problems.
Maintenance and change management procedures play a large role in keeping your system's uptime high as well. If you don't ever check to make sure the hardware is still working good (hard drives can warn you before they fail for example), that you back systems are functional, that your event logs aren't filled with errors warning of hardware problems, then you will not be able to resolve the problem until your machine goes down - and at that point your uptime is toast. Same goes with software maintenance. If you don't have a solid plan in place for determining the validity of software changes (from a 'simple' settings tweak to a full service pack install) you can lose uptime. If you install every single random patch as it is released, rather than only picking the ones you need and applying them in a batch, you will lose uptime. If you decide to upgrade some application to the latest whiz-bang version when you either don't really need it, or haven't tested it, you run the risk of losing uptime.
These aren't things that only affect Microsoft either. Linux, Mac OS X, and all the others are susceptible to these various problems as well. Best practices for high uptime/availability has nothing to do with a "pro-MS, anti-FOSS" argument.
this is 'work related enough' that I don't mind it going there.
No, adding extra bits doesn't make it more stable. The continued development process makes it more stable.
Windows XP (the original 32-bit one) is a 5.1 versioned code base, as are the service packs that go with it.
Windows XP x64 Edition is being built out of the same code base that Server 2003 was built out of, which makes it a 5.2 versioned code base (along with Server 2003 SP1, and Server 2003 x64 Editions).
BTW, all of the XPSP2 features are in this release candidate already.
Actually Windows XP x64 Edition is based on the Server 2003 SP1 code base (and as indicated in a number of articles already, the Server 2003 SP1, Server 2003 x64 Edition, and XP Pro x64 Edition releases are all tied together).
I can't begin to think of an explanation on why you have problems with XP Home and not XP Pro. Your assumption that there is something fundamentally different between the two versions that would make one 'stable' and the other 'crap' is wrong. If you look at the version number information on the two you will find that they are the same code base - in the same way that Standard Server and Datacenter Server are brothers.
If I were forced to guess why you have better luck with 2000 than XP, I would guess 3rd party drivers.
The minimum system requirements are really low. I would be willing to be that they are lower than what anyone configuring a system with an x64 processor would purchase. Why someone would want to buy a brand new 64-bit-capable computer and then drop 128 megs of ram in to it I don't know... That said, we do test on all sorts of different configurations.
Yea, I think so. I know you'll get that error if you try to run, for example, a Pocket PC executable on your desktop, and I imagine we would just have used the same code to handle all the other executable/architecture mismatches.