Xp Home vs Vista Home Premium 64 bit??

Message boards : Number crunching : Xp Home vs Vista Home Premium 64 bit??
Message board moderation

To post messages, you must log in.

1 · 2 · Next

AuthorMessage
JAMC
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 07
Posts: 71
Credit: 9,521,522
RAC: 0
Message 753286 - Posted: 14 May 2008, 21:04:23 UTC

Well it's time to get a new Q6600 crunching rig on line and saw that Newegg has both OS's for the same price (Vista back up to $95 and out-of-stock)...
Just wondering if any speed advantage of 64 bit would be offset by bloat :( of Vista relative to XP.
Thanks
ID: 753286 · Report as offensive
Profile [KWSN]John Galt 007
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Nov 99
Posts: 2444
Credit: 25,086,197
RAC: 0
United States
Message 753289 - Posted: 14 May 2008, 21:09:42 UTC - in response to Message 753286.  

Well it's time to get a new Q6600 crunching rig on line and saw that Newegg has both OS's for the same price (Vista back up to $95 and out-of-stock)...
Just wondering if any speed advantage of 64 bit would be offset by bloat :( of Vista relative to XP.
Thanks

Horse apiece, I think...
Clk2HlpSetiCty:::PayIt4ward

ID: 753289 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 753407 - Posted: 14 May 2008, 23:11:38 UTC



I would go with WinXP Pro 64bit


ID: 753407 · Report as offensive
JAMC
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 07
Posts: 71
Credit: 9,521,522
RAC: 0
Message 753414 - Posted: 14 May 2008, 23:27:54 UTC - in response to Message 753407.  



I would go with WinXP Pro 64bit



Ha! You are spending $50 more of my money!
ID: 753414 · Report as offensive
kittyman Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 00
Posts: 51468
Credit: 1,018,363,574
RAC: 1,004
United States
Message 753611 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 5:58:21 UTC - in response to Message 753407.  



I would go with WinXP Pro 64bit


And I would also agree with that choice....

"Freedom is just Chaos, with better lighting." Alan Dean Foster

ID: 753611 · Report as offensive
Profile UL1
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 20 Nov 06
Posts: 118
Credit: 21,406,060
RAC: 0
Germany
Message 753612 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 6:04:19 UTC

Me too...
ID: 753612 · Report as offensive
JAMC
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 07
Posts: 71
Credit: 9,521,522
RAC: 0
Message 753646 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 8:05:36 UTC

OK, thanks guys... I will give XP Pro 64 bit a try
ID: 753646 · Report as offensive
Sniper
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Jul 99
Posts: 310
Credit: 2,831,142
RAC: 0
United States
Message 753674 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 9:42:47 UTC - in response to Message 753646.  

OK, thanks guys... I will give XP Pro 64 bit a try


I had xp pro 64 in my 9850 quad core, and it ran fast(until I burned up the MoBo).

I wonder how much faster it would run using BOINCpe under xp pro 64?
ID: 753674 · Report as offensive
OzzFan Crowdfunding Project Donor*Special Project $75 donorSpecial Project $250 donor
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 9 Apr 02
Posts: 15691
Credit: 84,761,841
RAC: 28
United States
Message 753719 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 13:45:39 UTC

Some new info to mull over: ExtremeTech is reporting that Vista isn't slower than XP after all. It appears that most of Vista's performance issues early on (that caused such performance degradation) was the use of poor drivers from Microsoft themselves and from poor video drivers from ATi and nVidia.

ArsTechnica has a write up about it as well, mentioning the ExtremeTech article.
ID: 753719 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65748
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 753802 - Posted: 15 May 2008, 23:41:09 UTC - in response to Message 753719.  

Some new info to mull over: ExtremeTech is reporting that Vista isn't slower than XP after all. It appears that most of Vista's performance issues early on (that caused such performance degradation) was the use of poor drivers from Microsoft themselves and from poor video drivers from ATi and nVidia.

ArsTechnica has a write up about it as well, mentioning the ExtremeTech article.

Well since It's not any slower, Then It still is damn expensive to upgrade from XP x64 to Vista x64 as I'd rather get Vista Premium x64 and not be forced into Vista Ultimate x64 or settle for Vista Business x64 instead.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 753802 · Report as offensive
Profile Sutaru Tsureku
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 6 Apr 07
Posts: 7105
Credit: 147,663,825
RAC: 5
Germany
Message 753863 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 1:49:20 UTC


Someone have experiences with WinXP SP3 and WinVista SP1 and could compare the SETI@home crunching-speed?
Maybe 32 and 64 bit also?

ID: 753863 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D Harris
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1122
Credit: 33,600,005
RAC: 0
United States
Message 753873 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 2:33:25 UTC

I would go with the vista x64 since xp is older but in a couple of years there will be a new window os I think they call windows 7 it should be by 2010 or so I think. Anyway it will be beta testing so xp will be old. So I would have vista and beta test the new os windows 7.
ID: 753873 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13736
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 753942 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 8:23:31 UTC - in response to Message 753407.  

I would go with WinXP Pro 64bit

Why?
The only advantage of a 64bit OS is being able to use more than 3.5GB of system memory. WinXP64 has much less driver support than Vista64bit does.
So i don't see any advantge in using a 64bit OS, and if you do use one then Vista64bit would be the better choice.

Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 753942 · Report as offensive
Profile Paul D Harris
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 1 Dec 99
Posts: 1122
Credit: 33,600,005
RAC: 0
United States
Message 753958 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 9:38:15 UTC

When the 32 bit windows came out and replaced the 16 bit os the same was probally being said why change what are the advantages? Now we are at the 64 bit instead of the 32 bit os and the same discussions are being had why bother - because it can.
ID: 753958 · Report as offensive
Grant (SSSF)
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 13736
Credit: 208,696,464
RAC: 304
Australia
Message 753960 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 9:47:22 UTC - in response to Message 753958.  

When the 32 bit windows came out and replaced the 16 bit os the same was probally being said why change what are the advantages? Now we are at the 64 bit instead of the 32 bit os and the same discussions are being had why bother - because it can.

And i still ask the same question- why?
Unless your application(s) can make use of more than 3GB of RAM there is no advantage. The big disadvantage is the limited availability of 64bit drivers.
People went from a 16bit to a 32bit OS because there were advantages in doing so, and the disadvantages were minimal. But in going from 32bit to 64bit for most people there is no advantage & not insignificant disadvantges in doing so.
Grant
Darwin NT
ID: 753960 · Report as offensive
JAMC
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 2 Jan 07
Posts: 71
Credit: 9,521,522
RAC: 0
Message 753963 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 10:04:19 UTC - in response to Message 753960.  

When the 32 bit windows came out and replaced the 16 bit os the same was probally being said why change what are the advantages? Now we are at the 64 bit instead of the 32 bit os and the same discussions are being had why bother - because it can.

And i still ask the same question- why?
Unless your application(s) can make use of more than 3GB of RAM there is no advantage. The big disadvantage is the limited availability of 64bit drivers.
People went from a 16bit to a 32bit OS because there were advantages in doing so, and the disadvantages were minimal. But in going from 32bit to 64bit for most people there is no advantage & not insignificant disadvantges in doing so.


Just to clarify- this rig is BOINC only, 24/7 cruncher, no email or web browsing, no other programs etc... so the question is more 32 bit vs 64 bit and which flavour as it relates to crunching and even more specifically SETI and Einstein only.
Thanks
ID: 753963 · Report as offensive
W-K 666 Project Donor
Volunteer tester

Send message
Joined: 18 May 99
Posts: 19063
Credit: 40,757,560
RAC: 67
United Kingdom
Message 753973 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 10:44:31 UTC
Last modified: 16 May 2008, 10:45:10 UTC

No, still don't see any reason to use 64 bit version. Running quad with one Einstein, one Astropulse and two Seti units peak memory usage is 821,463 MBytes, and with AV, mail and browser etc running.
So memory limit is not a problem for computer that is only a cruncher. In fact installing more than one Gigabyte of RAM is also probably a waste of cash.

32 bit was a no-brainer because it allowed things like 24bit colour to be to be stored, fetched, written and processed in one move. But as that is limit the eye can discriminate they is no requirement for more there.

Seti's requirement for precision is low, accuracy is its need, so again no requirement for 64bit.

So unless computer is to be used for task where 64bit has been shown to be a great advantage why bother, as drivers are a big problem. And a Seti crunching machine by definition does not need 64bit operation.
ID: 753973 · Report as offensive
Profile Fred J. Verster
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 21 Apr 04
Posts: 3252
Credit: 31,903,643
RAC: 0
Netherlands
Message 753996 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 12:04:49 UTC - in response to Message 753973.  
Last modified: 16 May 2008, 12:12:08 UTC

No, still don't see any reason to use 64 bit version. Running quad with one Einstein, one Astropulse and two Seti units peak memory usage is 821,463 MBytes, and with AV, mail and browser etc running.
So memory limit is not a problem for computer that is only a cruncher. In fact installing more than one Gigabyte of RAM is also probably a waste of cash.

32 bit was a no-brainer because it allowed things like 24bit colour to be to be stored, fetched, written and processed in one move. But as that is limit the eye can discriminate they is no requirement for more there.

Seti's requirement for precision is low, accuracy is its need, so again no requirement for 64bit.

So unless computer is to be used for task where 64bit has been shown to be a great advantage why bother, as drivers are a big problem. And a Seti crunching machine by definition does not need 64bit operation.


Sorry, but Winterknight, isn't precision and accuracy , not about the same?
You want to buy/build a PC, for 'crunching' purposes. Also depends, for S@H only, since the WU's are rather small, a 32BIT XP or VISTA will do.

Ofcoarse you have to go with a MoBo, where you can put an Q6600/6700/6800* or
a QX9450/9550/9650 .


But how much money do you want to spend on this . I think that too is a limmitting factor.
I compaired a Q6600 to a QX9650, with X64 SiSoftSandra, @ stock freq. there is a 38%+ difference in SSE3 FLOPS . Will open a website @ imageshack or something like it, to show some graph's, about this.In favor off 9650.

Personally i'de choose XP64,(maybe also VISTA 64, but have NO experience with it.

So Whatever You Build or Buy, Keep On Crunching ;^)
I want my shrubbery now! Ni N!
ID: 753996 · Report as offensive
Vid Vidmar*
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 19 Aug 99
Posts: 136
Credit: 1,830,317
RAC: 0
Slovenia
Message 753999 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 12:21:42 UTC - in response to Message 753960.  

When the 32 bit windows came out and replaced the 16 bit os the same was probally being said why change what are the advantages? Now we are at the 64 bit instead of the 32 bit os and the same discussions are being had why bother - because it can.

And i still ask the same question- why?
Unless your application(s) can make use of more than 3GB of RAM there is no advantage. The big disadvantage is the limited availability of 64bit drivers.
People went from a 16bit to a 32bit OS because there were advantages in doing so, and the disadvantages were minimal. But in going from 32bit to 64bit for most people there is no advantage & not insignificant disadvantges in doing so.


There is not just 64bit address space advantage, but 64bit OS also makes all the 64bit registers available (each of these can hold twice the data, and there are more of them than 32bit ones) also, bear in mind that 64bit OS does 64bit transfers, and so on... Concerning lack of 64bit drivers, well sorry, but IMO that's just plain BS! I have been running XP pro 64bit since late march, and never had issues with any of the drivers - on a gaming machine! - except for a decent free AV, at the moment only Avast supports 64bits. Indeed currently there aren't many native 64bit apps, however 64bits are fairly recent addition to the desktop computing world, and things are apt to change quickly where computers are involved.

One more thing regarding XP vs Vista: XP is mature, proven OS, whilst Vista is still on its way from infancy to puberty and therefore more likely to cause trouble. I would wait with Vista until at least SP2 comes out (if ever).

Kind regards,
ID: 753999 · Report as offensive
Profile zoom3+1=4
Volunteer tester
Avatar

Send message
Joined: 30 Nov 03
Posts: 65748
Credit: 55,293,173
RAC: 49
United States
Message 754000 - Posted: 16 May 2008, 12:30:27 UTC - in response to Message 753999.  

When the 32 bit windows came out and replaced the 16 bit os the same was probably being said why change what are the advantages? Now we are at the 64 bit instead of the 32 bit os and the same discussions are being had why bother - because it can.

And i still ask the same question- why?
Unless your application(s) can make use of more than 3GB of RAM there is no advantage. The big disadvantage is the limited availability of 64bit drivers.
People went from a 16bit to a 32bit OS because there were advantages in doing so, and the disadvantages were minimal. But in going from 32bit to 64bit for most people there is no advantage & not insignificant disadvantages in doing so.


There is not just 64bit address space advantage, but 64bit OS also makes all the 64bit registers available (each of these can hold twice the data, and there are more of them than 32bit ones) also, bear in mind that 64bit OS does 64bit transfers, and so on... Concerning lack of 64bit drivers, well sorry, but IMO that's just plain BS! I have been running XP pro 64bit since late march, and never had issues with any of the drivers - on a gaming machine! - except for a decent free AV, at the moment only Avast supports 64bits. Indeed currently there aren't many native 64bit apps, however 64bits are fairly recent addition to the desktop computing world, and things are apt to change quickly where computers are involved.

One more thing regarding XP vs Vista: XP is mature, proven OS, whilst Vista is still on its way from infancy to puberty and therefore more likely to cause trouble. I would wait with Vista until at least SP2 comes out (if ever).

Kind regards,

Ok on a 64bit compatible AV that I use on all 3 of My PCs here(4th is in storage & the 5th is out of commission, 5th motherboard needs a quad cpu & a heatsink), I use AVG 8.0(FREE) under XP Pro x64 and It does both AV and ASW(Anti SpyWare) and at least one file avgrsa.exe is a native 64bit app, the other 3 exes that are running are 32bit of course.
The T1 Trust, PRR T1 Class 4-4-4-4 #5550, 1 of America's First HST's
ID: 754000 · Report as offensive
1 · 2 · Next

Message boards : Number crunching : Xp Home vs Vista Home Premium 64 bit??


 
©2024 University of California
 
SETI@home and Astropulse are funded by grants from the National Science Foundation, NASA, and donations from SETI@home volunteers. AstroPulse is funded in part by the NSF through grant AST-0307956.