New Computer - 64 bit XP worth it?


#1

I recently ordered parts to make a custom build computer, neglecting to order an OS of any kind because I planned on using the HDD in my current rig as the master, which has 32-bit Windows XP installed on it. Now, the rig I’m getting is a powerful machine, with plenty of bells and whistles, but not too many (kept it under $700), so I’m wondering if I should replace my 32-bit Windows with 64-bit Windows XP in order to maximize the hardware use.

Looking at the specs below, do you think it’d be worth it to upgrade to 64-bit XP?

  • 1 x EVGA 896-P3-1260-AR GeForce GTX 260 896MB 448-bit GDDR3 PCI Express 2.0 x16 HDCP Ready SLI Supported Video Card - Retail
  • 1 x COOLER MASTER Elite RC-332-KKN1-GP Black SECC ATX Mid Tower Computer Case - Retail
  • 1 x ECS A780GM-A AM2+/AM2 AMD 780G HDMI ATX AMD Motherboard - Retail
  • 1 x APEVIA ATX-AS520W-BK 520W ATX Power Supply - Retail
  • 1 x AMD Athlon 64 X2 5400 Brisbane 2.8GHz Socket AM2 65W Dual-Core black edition Processor Model ADO5400DSWOF - Retail
  • 1 x G.SKILL 4GB (2 x 2GB) 240-Pin DDR2 SDRAM DDR2 800 (PC2 6400) Dual Channel Kit Desktop Memory Model F2-6400CL5D-4GBPQ - Retail
  • 1 x Seagate Barracuda 7200.10 ST3250310AS 250GB 7200 RPM SATA 3.0Gb/s Hard Drive - OEM
  • 1 x Acer X223Wbd Black 22" 5ms Widescreen LCD Monitor - Retail

#2

What’s your reasoning? 64 bit Vista would use half the resources that I’m losing by not upgrading to a 64 bit platform. I’d prefer 32 bit XP over any Vista.

Edit: Hell, I’d prefer Windows 98SE over any Vista.


#3

64-bit XP I’ve heard rather nasty things about, mostly related to driver nonsense. What’s wrong with 64-bit Vista? I was a Vista hater since release until about a month ago when I installed it, it’s pretty awesome. Sure, there’s the one week adjustment period, but that’s seriously all the time it took for me to get used to it.

Have you even TRIED Vista? It’s not like you can’t reinstall your older OS after like a week. Vista is seriously awesome, and I’d used XP since its release. Vista uses resources that you’re not using when it’s just idling there on the desktop, and it’s doing productive stuff.

I’ve never heard of those power supply or motherboard brands, where are you buying this stuff from?

What? I’ve read this sentence 4 times and I dunno what you’re trying to say here.


#4

I’m saying the RAM that 32-bit platforms may not recognize (I’ve heard 32-bit Windows only recognizes up to 3.2 GB or only shows up to 2.0 since the OS uses 2.0 or some other nonsense of RAM) would be eaten by Vista.

Bought from Newegg. Have a friend who has had that mobo for a few months and it’s working fine. The power supply has a couple thousand good reviews on Newegg as well. Those aren’t brand names, they’re distributer names.


#5

64 bit vista + 8 gb ram = yes…


#6

Actually I’ve decided I’m just going to wait for Windows 7 and skip the whole Vista nonsense. I won’t be missing that much RAM using 32-bit XP (it only recognizes 3.25 GB, as it turns out), and I hate Vista, so.


#7

someone said it like this

64bit xp = 32bit with sh*tty patch

64bit vista = coded from the ground up


#8

http://forums.techpowerup.com/showthread.php?t=91260

Came across this and decided I might actually get 64-bit Vista. That’s super shitty that the 4 GB of virtual memory allocated in 32-bit platforms INCLUDES video card space.


#9

that made me laugh for 30 seconds

“coded from the ground up”

you bought right into the m$ coolaid

-joe


#10

64bit Vista is great, I have not used 64-bit XP but I heard it is not good at all.


#11

Seriously, why not at least give it a chance. Vista doesn’t use that many resources and you can disable shit you don’t want, like aero and whatever services. Really, if you’re using an old computer I understand but for a new computer there’s no excuse to bitching about Vista.

I bought an OEM copy of Vista 64 Home Premium about a year ago and haven’t had a problem outside of my wireless card’s driver. I was running with:
Intel Core 2 Duo E6400
2GB of RAM
nVidia GeForce 8800GT 512MB
which is much slower than your system and had no problems. The only people who hate Vista are the ones who don’t try it or try it with a closed mind wanting to hate it. I upgraded later on to 4GB and didn’t notice it that much outside of games/image editing. And the wonders of Vista64, when I bumped up to 6GB it was nice :slight_smile: video, audio and image editing flew. Thinking about 8GB now with the low price of DDR2.

m$, that’s very cute. m$ coolaid is even cuter.

Anyways, regardless of what you think, Vista64 is a ton better than XP64.


#12

The real question you should ask yourself is why an AMD processor? I’d have gone with a low end Core 2 Duo.


#13

Or a Q6660 they’re cheap and uber OCable.


#14

I’m glad you’ve seen the light :bgrin:

If you’re worried about Vista being a resource hog, don’t. People have commented on shit like “I’m sitting on the desktop not doing anything and Vista is using ## of my RAM wtf”, but it’s using resources that you’re not using because you’re just sitting on the desktop. It’s precaching things (faster load times), indexing your harddrives (faster searches), defragging your system, and if you don’t like all this crap, you can just disable it, although I wouldn’t recommend it. 4GB of RAM or more is awesome and I can guarantee that you’ll like Vista after getting used to its quirks.

This had me rolling my eyes for 30 seconds.

Why do you sign your posts? It’s not like we don’t know who’s posting it.

Yeah, but unless he’s doing a lot of video editing, coding, or other processor-intensive work, it’s more than likely that half of the cores won’t be utilized. The E8400 is what I would go with, but it’s totally up to him, both of the processors are awesome for the money, especially with i7 driving the prices down.


#15

AMD X2 5400+: 60$
Q6600: 215$

I think he ordered his parts already anyways.

And btw, ECS makes some solid motherboards, not big overclockers but they’re solid.


#16

I did, they’re scheduled to arrive within the next couple hours. The GTX 260 is a very, very good card for the price. I checked the benchmarks, etc.

And ECS is a badass company. Why would you not want a mobo that comes in a box with a dragon holding a bone sword on the front? :rofl:


#17

Holy crap, when did Q6600’s go up? I remember them being something like $190 tops.

Good to hear about the mobo. I’m sort of a Gigabyte fanboy, and despite all their snake-oil “ultra durable” marketing and cryptic renaming of BIOS features, they make solid mobos that are really good overclockers.


#18

when i order mobo’s, I always make sure they have 100% solid capacitors to maximize reliability. gigabyte has a few, MSI, EVGA (their FTW series) and ASUS. I currently have a:

Q6600
EVGA 680-A1
8GB Mushkin Redline DDR2 1000MHz
2x500GB 7200 RPM 16MB Cache Drives (non raid)
1x74GB Raptor 10K (O/S Drive)
Samsung LightScribe DVD/RW
Microsoft HABU mouse (had a razer, didn’t like how it feels)
2x NEC 20WMGX2
Logitech DiNovo Edge bluetooth wireless Keyboard
BFG 8800GTX
Sound Blaster X-Fi Titanium PCIe

Oh yeah, my system is water cooled.

At first, I had Vista 32 installed. It was okay. Definitely slower than XP. I can feel it, but yet it also felt “smoother”.

Then I installed Vista 64. WOW. What a difference. If you’re going to go 64-bit, go Vista 64. If you’re going to stay with 32 bit, stay with XP. As far as I know, Vista is the only OS that supports DX10, so gaming wise, you’re okay. I run 8MB of virtual memory, because Guitar Hero needs it. Otherwise, I would have NO virtual memory at all! Everything is so quick!

(even for being a 2 year old system!)


#19

The only reason to hate vista is because of lack of system resources causes poor performance. However an abundance of resources makes it an excellent OS.

You thus have no excuse.


#20

i have access to and used all the windows version including vista64 and i have to say that ubuntu box will beat any windows version

it’s true that given enough ram (4gb+) vista runs ok, but doesn’t do so efficiently

-joe