Ok well I've never really had a computer running more then a 530 mhz pentium 3 so old I could prolly say its almost as old as me… But I've recently ordered a dual core processing machine and was told I should get windows xp 64 bit edition and I was coming to you guys to find out… why I should get that, and if just xp doesn't work with them?

If the system is going to come with it there's no harm in it. Assuming you can still get XP/64bit. Just don't let someone push you into getting Vista.

Well I bought a barebones kit thats just missing a hdd and the cd drives and such but I just wanted to know if you had to have that one to use the processor correctly? And I do eventually want to get vista just because I want to play things like Halo 2 vista and crysis but I think crysis is coming out for xp as well.

You don't need 64 vista for a 64 PC. 32 runs fine, just doesn't monopolize on the 64's abilities. You'll be fine with pretty much any OS you want to run. I believe a primary concern of many gamers is that 32bit cpus limit you to 3 gigabytes of ram, but that's more than most people use, anyway.

If you're going to install xp profession 64 bit make sure there are drivers for your hardware, pretty much all of the default driver disks that are shipped with modern hardware aren't going to work so you'll have to download them. Especially pci drivers for wireless cards seem to be non existent.

Unless you want more than 3.5 gigs of ram I wouldn't bother.

A 32bit processor is capable of addressing 4GB of ram, but there isn't a game on the planet that needs that kind of power. At least not now. By the time there is I'm sure we'll all be firmly entrenched in a 64bit OS of some kind. Sadly for most that will end up being Vista :(

I had x64 windows for a bit but my wireless card didnt have drivers for it - if you get this be sure any additional hardware has drivers for it.

Edit: Posted this without reading scandum's post

The ASUS WL 169 works quite alright on xp 64, though you'll have to use the Windows driver since the attached driver software doesn't work, so keep that good old ethernet cable ready.

The usb stick comes with a special usb mount as well, so you can use the stick as an antenna.

Or you want faster execution. The increase is not all about memory space. You can find many examples of where going to a 64-bit system will make dramatic increases in performance.

The main reason I'd personally stick with a 32 bit OS is the software support.

If that wasn't an issue I'd switch to 128 bit asap, why bother with 64 bit :)

On an unrelated issue, is there anyone who knows when 128 bit processors will become desirable?

I doubt we'll see a need for a 128bit processor for awhile. Last I checked a 64bit CPU could map a ridiculous amount of ram (I think a couple of exabytes) so I'm pretty sure we wont be running into that wall for awhile :). No One Needs More Than 4GB of Ram^tm.

Well… I have to say that I've used up close to 4gb of memory when generating large pdf documents for some of my clients. Granted in this case it's because the apache FOP engine will use up about 1mb of memory per page being generated…

"Need" may not be the appropriate term since if absolutely necessary I could write my own FO processor, there are other techniques such as splitting the document, etc… however the client gets what they pay for, and the dev time to rewrite cots software isn't it. Been planning to find a more efficient processor, but never seem to find the time to properly test them.

well a different friend of mine said the same thing, but to go with windows xp pro and not home, is it better then home?

Yea, true. Although if you are willing to make a big jump, Mac OS X is 64 bit and seems to be well-supported. *ducks*



I doubt we'll move to 128-bit due to memory. Memory addressing isn't really the issue. If we need more addressing, Intel will just add another addressing register. It'll be an ugly kludge, but it's been done before back in the good old 16-bit days.

Put simply… XP Home has several features disabled or missing. I've run into cases where certain MS software will not install on home, but will on pro. (business software). The most glaring difference I've found is they removed the UI for configuring the folder/file security. In Pro you have to uncheck a folder option (simple sharing I believe) in order to access the permissions. Obviously home has the capability, since the system designated user accounts have folder/file security. I'm sure there are ways to configure this security manually or through third party utilities… but since I have access to pro through work, I've never had to sort through it.

*throws low*

I haven't used home for longer than 5 minute intervals, but I've heard some of the account security options are gone, too.

When I use windows, I use a version I downloaded. Not because I don't want to pay for it (own like 5 licenses just from the laptops/pcs I've bought that don't use it) but because I usually find one of the stripped down versions that runs faster. Removing useless drivers and such can save alot of space and time.

So professional would just be a bit better but not to much?

Depends on what you're doing. If you're just using it for gaming/web browsing then home should be fine… if you need to do anything more, then you're going to find home is extremely limited.

Alright I dont remember if I asked this or not, but I was just recently told that xp home doesn't support dual core processors?