Win XP 64-bit New System Build

[Team42]

Hello folks.

May I pick your brains for a little while?

I'm awaiting delivery of components for a complete new build.

The main spec is:

Gigabyte GA P35C DS3R
Intel Core 2 Duo E4300
Corsair QuadX2 XMS2 CL5 (4x1GB) XMS2, DDR2 PC2-6400 (800)
PowerColor Radeon X1950 Pro 512Mb Arctic Cooling
Arctic Cooling Arctic Freezer Pro 7
Antec 900 case (with every fan slot filled!)
HiperPower 730W PSU

and a few drives, etc.

My question is thus:

I'm hoping to use Windows XP 64-bit as the OS. I've identified all the relevant drivers for the various bits of hardware, peripherals, etc that I'll be using, and everything looks ok. But (a) I've never built a computer before, and (b) I have never used a 64 bit OS.

Firstly, I want to get the build up and running properly in stock spec and I really want to know if there are any issues related to the 64 bit OS that I should be aware of.

Secondly, when I get the system stable, I want to try to overclock the rig to as close to 3 GHz as possible. I've read the overclocking guide here (it's what led me to this site, and I have to say it was very VERY informative - kudos to the author) and it seems reasonably easy (if not time-consuming and repetive) to do with a C2D CPU. But will the 64-bit OS throw up any hurdles that will frustrate my attempts? Is overclocking the same (in principle) for a 64-bit OS as it is for a 32-bit OS?

Any suggestions (other than "get someone else to do it for you" ) will be most welcome.

Yours

T42

[mroz]

May I ask why you're considering XP 64? I'm no expert & haven't looked into it deeply but I have occassionally seen comments suggesting XP 64 has never received the support it needs, in respect of third party drivers & so on, as it was kind of a half way point (in some respects, not arbitrary functionality) developmentally between the original 32 bit XP & m$s following project Vista.

Assuming you intend OCing using the bios, with the possible exception of the desktop programs you might want to use for monitoring performance (I've no idea if these work under XP 64), there shouldn't be any difference in principle. Different OS might stress the hardware in different ways, but a stable system is a stable system & exists in that state independently of what it's being asked to do at any given time.

As it happens, if I turn out to be totally wrong I'd love to know, as I have a legit copy of XP 64 which I've never used.

[Team42]

Good question, mroz.

I'm building the system with the help of an experienced PC builder. When discussing the budget, use and performance, we settled on a high RAM spec (i.e. 4Gb instead of 2Gb) Given our knowledge of the RAM constraints imposed by Win XP 32-bit (which I currently use and am reasonably happy with) we decided that a 64-bit OS would give us the freedom we (think we) need.

When I did my initial research into 64-bit OS, it seemed it was more hassle than it was worth. But as I read more, it seemed that the public's initial fears are now outdated. But I still have a nagging doubt. Mainly, if it's as good as I've been led to believe, why isn't it more mainstream? Perhaps it is, and I just don't know. This is a bit of a technological backwater here, and getting good face-to-face advice is as easy as trying to persuade the Inland Revenue to give you a tax rebate...

My problem is trying to find a consensus view on the problems with setting up and running a 64-bit OS for everyday use and (much more importantly) gaming.

Perhaps I'm worrying unduly. If I need to revert to a 32-bit OS it's not a problem (except I may have 2Gb of RAM that I can't use!). But I'd like to make the most of my rig.

I'll let you know how I get on. The components were supposed to be here on Friday, but 2 of them are out of stock at present (everything's being sourced from Scan, at about £100 cheaper than the first spec I had pricced from Novatech!).

Thanks for your reply. It's my first day

[Agent]

If you want a 64bit OS, go with Vista.
If you must go with XP64, make 100% sure that the drivers you need are available for it. You should be ok for 'major' manufactures, but its never received the update timetable of its 32bit brother.

[mroz]

If you want a 64bit OS, go with Vista.
If you must go with XP64, make 100% sure that the drivers you need are available for it. You should be ok for 'major' manufactures, but its never received the update timetable of its 32bit brother.

What he said. Vista is receiving a decent level of support from developers & support will get better with time. With XP64 I suspect it's got as good as it's going to get.

I understand your point about the memory limit. I do a bit of video work & would like to have 4GiB available but tbh I don't fancy the hassle of various software packages not working & the increased risk of driver problems, so I'll be sticking with XP Pro 32bit for now. AIUI If you run XP32 with 4GiB of ram, XP will see just over 3, so it's not quite such a loss. 2GiB will do for me though.

I'm one of those who won't be switching from XP (in respect of MSoft OS - I do run SuSE linux too) until Vista gets to SP1 or 2 /&/ the number of issues has dropped dramatically, which in real terms probably means 1 to 3 years (I understand SP1 is now likely this year), unless of course SP3 for XP's main purpose is to break all XP installs

When I do switch it'll be to Vista 64bit.

[PoDd]

Vista 64bit. MS has some sort of developer program where they (sort of) insist driver/app developers support both 32bit and 64bit equally or they dont get access to somethin or other???!!! or somethin like that . This was never the case with XP and thus its poor support. Use Vista X64 with confidence, i have since release with no issues, except the general vista issues, slow data copy etc etc.

PoDd

[mroz]

Thanks. Good to know. That means just keeping an eye on reports of general performance problems & not having to deeply investigate 64 bit specific stuff before migrating. I'll wait until a month or two after SP1 & then take another look at user opinions.

[deadun]

Hi Team42

I've recently taken the plunge and gone for Vista64 - and new pc

Let me know how you get on with your 4gb ram on that Gigabyte board. Reason=friend with same board but pc8500 memory cannot get vista to stop Blue Screen Of Deathing with 4gb in, fine with 2gb (hasn't tried with 3)

That was only issue I had with the vista install too, although I'm running an EVGA 680i SLI board.
For reference - the Bios recognised my memory (OCZ) fine but Vista BSOD with 4gb in board. Installed fine with 2gb only. Once up and running I installed all windows updates, restarting appropriately. Then installed KB929777, restarted. Shut down put extra 2gb in...now running fine with 4gb. Until I put that KB on I just couldn't start up with all the memory in. (on an amusing note - the kb929777 states - that you must have windows vista installed on a computer that uses more than 3gb of ram, but if you do you bsod and can't install it! shame they don't tell people to remove some memory )

Other than the 4gb thing - vista working loverly for me. Side note - someone else I know did a XP-64/Vista64 compare and ended up with a 500 point increase in 3dmark when running XP-64..but we put that down to drivers. I'd go vista everytime onwards and forwards

Again, please keep posting how you're getting on - oh fyi - one 'fix' tried for friends pc was manually entering the memory timings in the bios - check on corsair.

Cheers

[shaithis]

Vista 64bit. MS has some sort of developer program where they (sort of) insist driver/app developers support both 32bit and 64bit equally or they dont get access to somethin or other???!!! or somethin like that

Basically you are not allowed the "Designed for Vista" logo on your hardware unless it has full 32 and 64bit driver support. Where as you could have the old "Designed for Windows XP" logo and never have any intentions of releasing a 64bit driver.

[Team42]

Hello again chaps, and chapesses, specifically Deadun,

I'm still here and still using XP 64 edition, and I'm delighted to say I've had no problems.

OK, so my camera and mobile phone software aren't supported in 64 edition, but that's a minor inconvenience. I can't get FaryCry to play, which is a complete pain in the arse, but I'm still alive. I've spent the last month and a half playing COD4 (yeah, yeah, I should have finished it ages ago, but I've been busy, and these Arab chappies keep shooting at me...) and the system is running fine. And fast.

I don't think I've had any probs specific to the OS. The rig is now OCed to 3.0 GHz (it's a e4300 with DDR2 PC6400 RAM), temps are fine, drivers are working great, no stability issues.

I've been monitoring temps with the usual suspects (CoreTemp, SpeedFan) and setup with CPU-Z. I've been using MS Office 2003 Professional, Firefox, Avast, AVG Free, Spybot, Adaware, Azureus, Limewire, Cowon Jet Audio, Nero, PowerISO, ConvertXtoDVD. Sound is courtesy of the mobos onboard chip (in 5.1 surround sound). I have had nothing to indicate a problem with Win XP 64 edition. It's working great.

Is it better than the normal XP?

Haven't a f**king clue.

Great review, eh?

Sleep well, computer people.

T42

[8bit]

XP64 isn't actually based on XP at all, it's based on Windows Server 2003 64bit edition, it just has the features missing from XP bolted on along with the XP explorer interface instead of the less flashy 2003 server one. As such a lot of software that should work fine on 64bit XP refuses to install because it thinks the OS is 2003 server.

I used 64bit XP for about 16 months and although I found it slightly quicker at some things (.NET apps for example), the hassle I had with drivers for some more esoteric hardware eventually drove me back to 32bit XP when I next had to do a reinstall. It's also possible to support up to 4GB of RAM on 32bit XP by putting the /PAE switch on the end of the corresponding OS line in your boot.ini file so it's not necessary to use 64bit for more than 2.25GB of RAM.

I will say I found XP64 to be a bit more stable on my rig than regular 32-bit XP but I'd put that down to it being based on a server OS than a consumer one to be honest. Nice try but hardly set my world on fire, maybe Vista x64 is a different beast but I've not had a proper look since the early public betas.

[Agent]

It's also possible to support up to 4GB of RAM on 32bit XP by putting the /PAE switch on the end of the corresponding OS line in your boot.ini file so it's not necessary to use 64bit for more than 2.25GB of RAM.

It supports up to 4GB without any switching, including BIOS addressing space (/PAE makes no difference to this)
Im not sure what the 2.25GB is on about?

[directhex]

wasn't PAE removed from xpsp2 anyway? for some massive security violation?

[s_kinton]

Let me know how you get on with your 4gb ram on that Gigabyte board. Reason=friend with same board but pc8500 memory cannot get vista to stop Blue Screen Of Deathing with 4gb in, fine with 2gb (hasn't tried with 3)

Tell him to download and install the following: KB929777

That stops most most BSODs relating to 4Gb of ram.

EDIT: Just noticed you've done that, so I assume your friend has too

[dangel]

It supports up to 4GB without any switching, including BIOS addressing space (/PAE makes no difference to this)
Im not sure what the 2.25GB is on about?

He probably meant 3.25GB (which is probably the most common case for the amount of RAM that's actually visible after the addressing has been shared out with other devices).

Perhaps everyone on here should add the following line to their sig:

If you want to use 4gb or more of RAM on Windows you need a 64bit operating system - there are no hacks, no 'secret' switches or incantations that will changes this. Period.



Personally, I'd always go with Vistax64 for the driver support and the fact it's not half a decade out of date.

wasn't PAE removed from xpsp2 anyway? for some massive security violation?

Wrong. Quite the opposite:

Beginning with Windows XP Service Pack 2, the 32-bit version of Windows utilizes the no-execute page-protection (NX) processor feature as defined by AMD or the Execute Disable bit feature as defined by Intel. In order to use these processor features, the processor must be running in Physical Address Extension (PAE) mode. The 64-bit versions of Windows XP uses the NX processor feature on 64-bit extensions and certain values of the access rights page table entry (PTE) field on IPF processors.

It is hoped that all future 32-bit and 64-bit processors will provide support for hardware-enforced data execution prevention. Microsoft continues to work with processor vendors to encourage the adoption and development of DEP technologies.