|
Windows x64 question (pg. 2)
|
View this Thread in Original format
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Fir3start3r
True dat.
While it's 'cool' to have, you're left feeling like an idiot until the software catches up with the hardware (again)... :mad: |
yeah i was told to expect that and that's ok. At least i'm set up to take advantage of the newer software coming up. But for now, all would agree it's best to stick with the older 32 bit XP then eh? I"ll have to break the news to my buddy then. :p He was loving the 64 bit stuff. |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
Is it the way things are going so don't feel too bad.
You'll be set when things swing around and before long, you'll see your expense pay off  |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Don't bother with Windows XPx64 unless you can find drivers for everything you have.
On another note, Microsoft announced yesterday that Vista will not support EFI, so everybody cuddle up with their ol' Phoenix BIOSes now! |
Off-topic, but in that case, would you skip Vista and wait for Windows Server 2007 (w/WinFS)? |
|
|
| ShadoWolf |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
many programs don't even support 64-bit... let alone dual core...
edit: just for clarification... the games that don't support dual core, you'll just see your processor running at 50%, because the game only supports a single core. Some games, however, have patches out to support dual core.. |
Are you referring to SLI?
SLI might actually lower your FPS. :wtf: :wtf:
http://www.tomshardware.com/2005/12...iii/page20.html |
|
|
| Fir3start3r |
low FPS bad
git bullet in head :disbelief |
|
|
| psychosomatica |
| quote: | Originally posted by Dj Smitty20
ah...so this would apply to RAM then too? I have two 1gb at 533 installed...so even newer games won't take advantage of that? Almost every computer knowledgable person I talked to said dual core was the way to go for sure. Maybe not so? |
nah.. I'm pretty sure you can have as many modules as you want.. there's no split of memory between the cores.. as far as I know...
I'll probably wait until mid-2007 to get a new computer. Vista should have been out for a few months by then. It will support all the chip technology that currently exists. And you know.. once Microsoft goes to a different standard.. everyone else will. Just wait another year or so..
edit: clarification again... when I say memory I refer to RAM... dual cores have separate L1 and L2 caches... for now. |
|
|
| Dj Smitty20 |
| quote: | Originally posted by psychosomatica
nah.. I'm pretty sure you can have as many modules as you want.. there's no split of memory between the cores.. as far as I know...
I'll probably wait until mid-2007 to get a new computer. Vista should have been out for a few months by then. It will support all the chip technology that currently exists. And you know.. once Microsoft goes to a different standard.. everyone else will. Just wait another year or so..
edit: clarification again... when I say memory I refer to RAM... dual cores have separate L1 and L2 caches... for now. |
ahh...yeah I was told to wait until the summer at least...but the computer I was using was practically useless (P4 1.0, 256 RAM, etc) and not even mine. There was no sense upgrading it for a few hundred dollars or more and then not being able to take it with me when I go away to do my MA next year. So I took the plunge and built a whole new system for $1700. I'm fairly certain what I have is pretty good though and I can always just upgrade that in the coming years.
So just to be sure, I should just go back to a 32 bit XP then for now until Vista comes out next year? |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by ShadoWolf
Off-topic, but in that case, would you skip Vista and wait for Windows Server 2007 (w/WinFS)? |
Windows Server 2007 is just that, a server platform. Not for home use. Vista, "AT LAUNCH," will not support EFI, but I'm sure it will in later revisions prior to Server 2007.
It really doesn't matter unless you want to throw it into an Intel iMac or Macbook/Macbook Pro. |
|
|
| daves |
64 bit windows isn't ready for public consumption yet... it's a mess
shoddy driver support, lack of true 64 bit apps means all your classic stuff is gonna run through wow64 emulation... you wont be pleased. |
|
|
| Cosmic Fur |
| quote: | Originally posted by VERTiG0
Don't bother with Windows XPx64 unless you can find drivers for everything you have.
|
This man is right. I'd suggest scrapping x64 completely and going back to 32-bit. I myself foolishly bought a 64-bit laptop without researching it first, thinking I'd be cruising in 64 bits in no time (before finding out installing a 64-bit operating system voids the laptop's warranty completely. YAY :roll:)
In order for 64-bit to be actually useful, you need 4 of the following things:
- 64 bit CPU
- 64-bit OS
- 64-bit drivers
- 64-bit software
Now, the first two items are readily available, the last two are not. First off, there are very limited amount of official 64-bit manufacturer drivers. There are some unofficial ones, but installing those once again voids the warranty for the device. Even once you get past the big hurdle of finding all the drivers for your system, you still need the 64-bit software. I'd say 90% of software out there is writte in 32-bits still. And without 64-bit software, all that other 64-bit stuff that you got inside your PC is just overkill. |
|
|
| Surreal JRS |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
(before finding out installing a 64-bit operating system voids the laptop's warranty completely. YAY :roll:) |
I find it perplexing as to how installing another OS would void the hardware warranty? You should be free to install whatever OS you want! I suppose if this truly is the case, the way around it would be to create a backup image of the drive in case you need to send the laptop in for repair. |
|
|
| VERTiG0 |
| quote: | Originally posted by Cosmic Fur
(before finding out installing a 64-bit operating system voids the laptop's warranty completely. YAY :roll:)
|
What the are you talking about |
|
|
|
|
