64 bit processor: XP 64 or not?

[Pieter]

Hi,

I'm getting a new laptop with AMD 64 Dual Core processor. I'm using this pc
to develop in Visual Studio 2003, 2005, and will isntall also SQL Server
2000 and 2005, Visio etc.

- Should I install the XP 64-bit version or the 'normal' version?

- Does the 64-bit version will have a significant difference in performance?
If yes: how much percent is the difference? When using visual Studio?

- Will I find all the necessary drivers when I use 64-bit? Or is this a pain
in the *ss?

- Any other things I should think about/consider?

Thanks a lot in advance,

Pieter

 

[Anando [MS-MVP]]

Hello Pieter,

You cannot buy Windows XP x64 edition through the retail channel. It will either come pre-installed
with the PC or if you have access to MSDN subscription downloads, you can get it from there.
Normally its quite a pain to get all the 64 bit drivers but more and more manufacturers are making
64 bit drivers available. It all depends on the kind of hardware that is present in your system.

You will not see any boost in performance under x64 unless the application you are running is coded
to run in 64 bit. In your case, I am not sure if Visual Studio 2005 is a 64 bit application.

You can get more information and post questions about Winodws XP x64 at the following newsgroup:

microsoft.public.windows.64bit.general

--

Anando
Microsoft MVP- Windows Shell/User
http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
http://www.mvps.org


Folder customizations
http://newdelhi.sancharnet.in/minku

Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[Pieter]

Thanks for the quick response.
We do have a MSDN-subscription, so getting it won't be such a big problem.

So basicly I'll have to find out if Visual Studio is a 64-bit application,
and if it isn't, it won't give me any advantage, and will only be a pain
(drivers) :-S

So buying a 64-bit processor doesn't make sense at all?

 

[Thomas Steffen]

I'm getting a new laptop with AMD 64 Dual Core processor. I'm using this pc
to develop in Visual Studio 2003, 2005, and will isntall also SQL Server
2000 and 2005, Visio etc.

- Should I install the XP 64-bit version or the 'normal' version?

Unless your laptop comes with 8 GB of memory (which would be a
surprise), you should probably go with the normal version.

- Does the 64-bit version will have a significant difference in performance?
If yes: how much percent is the difference? When using visual Studio?

In your case: no. Better performance is only gained with 64bit
applications. So far most 64bit applications are either scientific
software or for video processing.

- Will I find all the necessary drivers when I use 64-bit? Or is this a pain
in the *ss?

For a laptop, I would consider this very doubtful. You may end up in
many different environments using lots of devices. Having drivers for
all of them seems like a win in the lottery. My hit rate was about 80%.

- Any other things I should think about/consider?

You can dual boot, but of course this also means dual cost. With VMware,
you can run both systems side by side, while the cost is roughly doubled
again.

Thomas

 

[Guest]

In the tests that I've read, the x64 version of Windows isn't significantly
faster (as Anando said).

Unless you have a dire need for x64 on your laptop, I'd suggest that you
stay away from it. Even if you do find the drivers for it - will the laptop
be able to handle all the extra stuff that's required (remember the switch
from 16 bit to 32 bit OS's and the increases in system demands and file
sizes?)?

Good luck!

- John

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Your laptop will certainly support x64, and the mfg of it may well provide
all the drivers you need _for the laptop_. Will it be faster? Well, SQL
Server and Visual Studio 2005 versions might be, since they have x64
versions. But given you'll top out of memory long before the top end of
32-bit Windows, the differences won't be huge.

You can obtain an OEM version of x64 Edition if your laptop didn't already
come with it. Using MSDN for it might be a problem, given the licensing of
MSDN - since this is your "production" machine, not a testing machine. You
can certainly dual boot - see my blog on setting that up, please, it will
save you some pain, especially if you do it in the wrong order.

For a general overview of x64 Edition, see the links in my blog post:
http://msmvps.com/blogs/xperts64/archive/2005/11/29.aspx

There are links to an article, an FAQ and a Web Cast that answer many of the
basic questions about x64 Edition.

 

[John Barnes]

You don't say what your machine is, but you could benefit if you have a
large amount of memory, but not sure how much of an improvement it would be
with a 32-bit program. You possibly could dual boot while you are trying to
get everything together for x64. Then you can try out programs on both
systems and decide which to keep later.

 

[beb]

It varies for application to application. You might be able to get a 32 bit
application to run better on 64 bit machine and another might run worst.
Some software gives you the choice of install as a 32 bit application or as
a 64 bit one. Check with the vendor of the applications your are interested
in.

 

[Anando [MS-MVP]]

Buying a 64bit based machine is good on the long run since Windows Vista will also be launched in a
64 bit flavour and more and more applications are being launched in 64 bit flavours too.

--

Anando
Microsoft MVP- Windows Shell/User
http://www.microsoft.com/mvp
http://www.mvps.org


Folder customizations
http://newdelhi.sancharnet.in/minku

Protect your PC!
http://www.microsoft.com/protect

 

[Rob Perkins]

Thanks for the quick response.
We do have a MSDN-subscription, so getting it won't be such a big problem.

So basicly I'll have to find out if Visual Studio is a 64-bit application,
and if it isn't, it won't give me any advantage, and will only be a pain
(drivers) :-S

VS 2005 is capable of producing 64-bit applications. I don't know if the
IDE is 64-bit, since I can't think of a single reason why to write it
for 64-bit right now. But I can say with surety that it *runs* under x64
edition.

Rob

 

[Andre Da Costa [Extended64]]

I think only the Professional Edition and up can compile native 64-bit
applications.
--
Andre
Extended64 | http://www.extended64.com
Blog | http://www.extended64.com/blogs/andre
http://spaces.msn.com/members/adacosta
FAQ for MS AntiSpy http://www.geocities.com/marfer_mvp/FAQ_MSantispy.htm

 

[Mike]

Hi Pieter,

If you are in development, I'd recommend getting onto the x64 platform.
There is where you will find out what it is about in leaps and bounds by
experience.

If you are on MSDN then a solution that is working for my setup is to boot
to Pro x64 and then run Virtual Server R2 with an x86 guest system.

So you can boot-to and be sitting on the unencumbered platform and still be
a click away from an x86 platform for an isolated test environment, even if
unplugged from the network (remote access via localhost/myGuest-x86).

In developing web server extensions and components I was a bit surprised on
the little dependencies of our stuff. Things that requires my prodding the
3rd party vendors along towards x64. Their C/C++ lib files and dlls need to
be compiled for 64 as well. I wouldn't have realized without deciding to sit
on x64. Am also realizing the Client-side ActiveX controls of our app need
some attention too to offer an IE-64 solution as well.

Lots to do out there, but it it is good fun.

- Mike

 

[Rob Perkins]

I think only the Professional Edition and up can compile native 64-bit
applications.

Maybe, though one of the promises of the .NET Framework was object code
which could be optimized to any Windows platform, mobile, IA32, IA64, or
x64.

Stands to reason that unless the .NET assemblies are decorated only for
32-bit, that they'll compile for 64-bit when the 64-bit runtime JITs them.

And of course, 32-bit programs will run anyway under x64, so perhaps
this is something which doesn't matter very much for a bytecode-based
environment like .NET.

Rob

 

[Steve Foster [SBS MVP]]

Unless your laptop comes with 8 GB of memory (which would be a surprise),
you should probably go with the normal version.


In your case: no. Better performance is only gained with 64bit
applications. So far most 64bit applications are either scientific
software or for video processing.

32-bit applications that are large memory aware (mostly memory intensive
applications) can benefit from running on XP x64, since they immediately
gain access to a larger virtual memory space than they would on 32-bit XP.

For a laptop, I would consider this very doubtful. You may end up in many
different environments using lots of devices. Having drivers for all of
them seems like a win in the lottery. My hit rate was about 80%.

Depends on the laptop manufacturer, and whether the machine is certified
for Windows XP x64. For example, the Acer Ferrari 4005 (a firm favourite
among MVPs) is certified and all the drivers are available (as well as x64
being a pre-loaded option).

 

[Thomas Steffen]

If you are in development, I'd recommend getting onto the x64 platform.
There is where you will find out what it is about in leaps and bounds by
experience.

That is a good argument. If you ever intend to develop for x64,
obviously having Windows x64 installed is very helpful. That's the main
reason I installed Ubuntu/amd64, because I wanted to see 64bit long
variables in action (and you don't get that even on Windows x64).

If you are on MSDN then a solution that is working for my setup is to boot
to Pro x64 and then run Virtual Server R2 with an x86 guest system.

VMware has two free offerings, and as far as I understand they even work
the other way round (x64 in the box). That would be my choice.

Am also realizing the Client-side ActiveX controls of our app need
some attention too to offer an IE-64 solution as well.

Does that mean that there is a 64bit plugin for IE now? Because I have
not seen any in the wild yet.

Thomas

 

[James Robertson]

No, it's only the express editions which don't support x64 as a target
platform.

I'm using VS2005 on an x64 machine and it's not noticably faster than any
other version I've seen running. It *is* noticably slower than VS2003, but
that's progress (and .Net) for you. ;o)

 

[Gary]

"You cannot buy Windows XP x64 edition through the retail channel. "
Please see http://www.newegg.com/Product/Product.asp?Item=N82E16837102065

 

[Charlie Russel - MVP]

Newegg _is_ the retail channel, but, of course, what they are selling is not
"Retail" x64 Edition. But OEM/System Builder version. There is no Retail
boxed product.

 

[Bob I]

You might want to read ALL the story from NEWEGG

"All OEM software including the operating system is 100% non-refundable
once purchased and delivered. OEM versions are intended for system
builders only and cannot be transferred to another PC once it is
installed. Purchasers of this software are required to comply with the
terms of the System Builder License, including responsibility for
providing all end-user support. Newegg.com is not responsible for
system/software incompatibility, and incompatibility issues do not
qualify software as damaged or defective. Customers are encouraged to
contact the respective software publisher for answers to technical
questions, such as minimum system requirements, prior to purchase."

 

[Michael D'Angelo]

I think that only applies to C++ (i.e. producing native non .NET
applications)