Upgrading to XP64 from XP32
-
Thought so, that would be the standard MO of that b4st4rd :|
-
Yeah, I just thought it could be done without the hassle. Looks like that concept is now alien to MS.
To look at the positive side... one should always start with an empty disk, so they're just enforcing good practice. :-D
-
To look at the positive side... one should always start with an empty disk, so they're just enforcing good practice. :-D
meh, I've learned to take things from MS with a pinch of salt, a squeeze of lemon and a shot of tequila.
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
-
harold aptroot wrote:
I tried, IIRC said something about being impossible due to using an other programming language which doesn't sound like a reason to me (and even untrue, because why would they do that?)
WTF? Its a compiler issue, you just compile for 64 bit length words instead of 32. Granted I'd expect there to be specific items and tasks that are 64 bit specific, but those (my assumption) would come in with the copy of the kernel.
harold aptroot wrote:
in any case, it didn't want to do it without formating.
That would be the Windows CD?
WinXP x64 is based upon the Server 2003 code base which has kernel 5.2 unlike WinXP 32 wich has kernel 5.1 so it isn't just a question of recompiling for 64-bit. That's also the reason why there is no SP3 for WinXP x64. And knowing MS, you better always start with a fresh disk, never try to update one OS with another.
-
Has anyone done this without a format? Successfully?
-
Upgrade? More like downgrade in my experience but whatever makes you happy. :)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
-
Upgrade? More like downgrade in my experience but whatever makes you happy. :)
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Really? It hasn't given me much trouble, some installers have to be hacked a little (such as Live Mail..) and shell extensions are usually only installed for the 32bit Explorer which makes them pretty much useless, that's been all.. 16bit programs don't really exist anymore anyway :) It makes CPU bound .NET program about 30% faster if Paint.NET is any indication, which is a nice bonus..
-
Really? It hasn't given me much trouble, some installers have to be hacked a little (such as Live Mail..) and shell extensions are usually only installed for the 32bit Explorer which makes them pretty much useless, that's been all.. 16bit programs don't really exist anymore anyway :) It makes CPU bound .NET program about 30% faster if Paint.NET is any indication, which is a nice bonus..
On it's own, for purpose built systems that absolutely need to run some 64 bit software (and there are really only handful of apps that specialized at this point) it's perfect. Under any other circumstances it's not a good idea at all.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Its the SVN "server" I just want to be able to utilize all 4 GB of RAM in addition to the second core :shrug: Its not meant to be the workhorse.
XP32 won't give you 4GB of RAM; it will be between 3.25 and 3.5 GB. (I always thought it was 3.5GB, but a colleague just got a new system and it cut him off at 3.25 for 32-bit.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
-
News to me, I made all the rounds of all the virus scanners a couple of months ago and no one had anything for x64 that wasn't an arm and a leg, I'll have to check again. Cheers!
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
News to me, I made all the rounds of all the virus scanners a couple of months ago and no one had anything for x64 that wasn't an arm and a leg, I'll have to check again. Cheers!
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Mustafa Ismail Mustafa wrote:
Its not meant to be the workhorse.
In my personal experience, unless you have a highly specialized 64bit app that you absolutely have to run (the kind that there are only a handful of in the world) there are just no benefits to it at all and many many down sides such as hyper expensive anti virus software, shell issues with every common app you're used to running, many apps despite being advertised as compatible running into glitches here and there and in the end most of the stuff you want to run turns out to not be truly 64bit anyway, just designed to be compatible with WOW as 32 bit emulated apps. Squeezing a few hundred kb of extra ram simply isn't worth it.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
Is XP64 really that bad? Running Vista64 I've encountered exactly one app that wouldn't work (a drag reordering task bar addin, thankfully a CPian has written a replacement.[^]) and am using avast free without issue.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
News to me, I made all the rounds of all the virus scanners a couple of months ago and no one had anything for x64 that wasn't an arm and a leg, I'll have to check again. Cheers!
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
XP32 won't give you 4GB of RAM; it will be between 3.25 and 3.5 GB. (I always thought it was 3.5GB, but a colleague just got a new system and it cut him off at 3.25 for 32-bit.)
Anyone who thinks he has a better idea of what's good for people than people do is a swine. - P.J. O'Rourke
Joe Woodbury wrote:
XP32 won't give you 4GB of RAM; it will be between 3.25 and 3.5 GB. (I always thought it was 3.5GB, but a colleague just got a new system and it cut him off at 3.25 for 32-bit.)
Or less. It depends how much is blocked out for DMA. My laptop only has 3GB available (most of what the BIOS snags is unused :mad:), and a desktop with high end GPUs can end up with only 2 and change.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
-
Is XP64 really that bad? Running Vista64 I've encountered exactly one app that wouldn't work (a drag reordering task bar addin, thankfully a CPian has written a replacement.[^]) and am using avast free without issue.
Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
It's entirely useless unless you have one of a handful of very specific needs and want to dedicate an entire OS to that task. I want to reach out and slap people running 64 because they haven't thought it out and they have no good reason to and it just causes headache all around.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson
-
Are you sure you weren't looking at 64bit
serverversions?Today's lesson is brought to you by the word "niggardly". Remember kids, don't attribute to racism what can be explained by Scandinavian language roots. -- Robert Royall
Maybe, however I just looked at it again and they still make no mention at all of 64bit for their free version, all I found was blog and message board posts saying it was now compatible.
"It's so simple to be wise. Just think of something stupid to say and then don't say it." -Sam Levenson