Switching from XP pro to XP 64

[Meshugger]

Well, the title speaks for itself. My current specs are:

 

Intel Core 2 Duo E6300

Abit AB9 Pro motherboard

2GB DDR2 RAM

GeForce 7900 GTO 512MB

Onboard HD Audio, using DD 5.1 to an external decoder

80GB ATA HDD

250GB SATA HDD

 

 

I just bought some more ram (2GB for a mere 70 bucks, i just had to) and i wondered about the compability and performance gain by switching from 32-bit to 64-bit (Apparantly, XP pro doesn't use 4GB of RAM that well, thus the reason for an OS-upgrade). I still have some older games such as Fallout 2, Unreal 1, Unreal Tournament, SS 2, Deus Ex and PS:T, that i might play again in the future, but will those be playable at all? Or should i just stick with my regular 32-bit WinXP Pro?

 

Oh, and no Vista recommendations please. I will not touch that one until there's a service pack or two out.

Edited May 30, 2007 by Meshugger

[Gfted1]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I dont believe there are any 64-bit applications out yet for mainstream consumers. What that means, AFAIK, is you wont realize any performance gain but you will be future proof.

[Sand]

In my ever so humble opinion you would be better off sticking to XP Pro til you are ready or need to jump to Vista then get a 64 bit version of either Home Premium or Ultimate.

[metadigital]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I dont believe there are any 64-bit applications out yet for mainstream consumers. What that means, AFAIK, is you wont realize any performance gain but you will be future proof.

[Meshugger]

Alrighty then, it seems like i'm gonna stick with WinXP Pro for a while then. Nevermind having 3.25GB of memory, or whatever the explorer is going to show.

[taks]

3079276 KB in my window.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

3079276 KB in my window.

 

taks

 

What happens to the extra 1GB then? Is it reserved for I/O-interrupts or is just sitting there, doing nothing?

[Spider]

Take this with a grain of salt, but I dont believe there are any 64-bit applications out yet for mainstream consumers. What that means, AFAIK, is you wont realize any performance gain but you will be future proof.

 

There are a few, but typically not the ones that pushes your computer enough to warrant the change.

[taks]

3079276 KB in my window.

 

taks

 

What happens to the extra 1GB then? Is it reserved for I/O-interrupts or is just sitting there, doing nothing?

i've read that winders actually uses it, though i cannot fathom why or how. it would seem to me that if the memory is being used by winders, than a similar amount must also be used even when you have less than 3 GB total. however, in such cases, winders reports the entire amount, which leads me to believe that either a) what i've read is hand-waving to throw suspicion off of a bug or b) when winders sees that you've gone that far with extra RAM, it chooses to use that in addition to its normal paging file, so you're still getting some gain.

 

the conspiracy theorist in me says "a," but i really don't know. either way, my system definitely runs fast now, but that's also a result of the E6600, 8800GTS and 7200.10 SATA drive (parallel read) as my system components.

 

taks

[Meshugger]

3079276 KB in my window.

 

taks

 

What happens to the extra 1GB then? Is it reserved for I/O-interrupts or is just sitting there, doing nothing?

i've read that winders actually uses it, though i cannot fathom why or how. it would seem to me that if the memory is being used by winders, than a similar amount must also be used even when you have less than 3 GB total. however, in such cases, winders reports the entire amount, which leads me to believe that either a) what i've read is hand-waving to throw suspicion off of a bug or b) when winders sees that you've gone that far with extra RAM, it chooses to use that in addition to its normal paging file, so you're still getting some gain.

 

the conspiracy theorist in me says "a," but i really don't know. either way, my system definitely runs fast now, but that's also a result of the E6600, 8800GTS and 7200.10 SATA drive (parallel read) as my system components.

 

taks

 

Hehe, sounds like a definite 'a'

Edited May 31, 2007 by Meshugger

[taks]

btw, my dell system at the office, with 4 GB, reports about 3.3 GB. the only difference i can think of is the fact that it is doing two dual-channel kits, each with 2x1GB, but my home system has 2x2GB, dual-channel.

 

taks